search
top

The New Brady Competition – Americans for Responsible Solutions

It looks like Gabby Giffords’s husband, Mark Kelly, has decided that the other high profile tragedy-created gun control groups just aren’t cutting it since he launched a new PAC today that is jumping straight into the political battle on restrictions to our rights. The goal is to oppose what they refer to as “the gun lobby’s political contributions, advertising and lobbying.” In other words, it’s designed to oppose that pesky grassroots force that keeps calling lawmakers and donating to candidates with both time and money.

The big focus in the launch seems to center around magazines and background checks, but they do also plan to target some vague reference to “weapons designed for the battlefield.” Calling the defense of our rights by NRA as “defiant and unsympathetic,” Mark Kelly did make sure to give some free advertising to Bloomberg’s partner Wal-Mart by telling the press that it’s where he buys his guns. It makes me wonder if that was part of Kelly’s meeting with Bloomberg came with a request that he pitch Wal-Mart as the place to buy guns. Since we already know that crony capitalism is likely going to be on table for any gun control measures, it’s not out of the question.

An interesting question that I have is how this new PAC will work with Gabby PAC which Kelly & Giffords launched in September. That PAC only backs Democrats, so it seems like that could be the likely direction of this new effort.

51 Responses to “The New Brady Competition – Americans for Responsible Solutions”

  1. MattW says:

    You must have posted this just as I was emailing it to you.

    Didn’t she, early in her recovery, say she didn’t blame the gun?

    • Bitter says:

      Actually, it’s been up for almost an hour. I just got your email about a minute before your comment. :)

      That said, even if she did say that, the goals of her husband’s new PAC aren’t about the gun actually used to shoot at her – at least beyond the magazine. So, unless she said she didn’t blame the magazine, she could still stand by that kind of statement. For their potential support of any rifle bans, well, the gun used on her wasn’t a rifle. It was a commonly owned handgun. The PAC could push all sorts of policies that could technically be defined as her not blaming the specific firearm used in the tragedy at her event.

      • AndyN says:

        If she doesn’t want to blame the gun that was used to shoot her, it’s more than a little ironic that what they are going to target are objects that are much less likely to be used to commit violent crime than the one she was shot with.

    • Harold says:

      Didn’t she, early in her recovery, say she didn’t blame the gun?

      She’s a politician, and still one of a sort. Back then as I recall she hadn’t decided to quit the Congress and perhaps, to use Bill Clinton’s phrase, wanted to maintain her political viability in the system.

      Now, not so much. And she could say she’s rethought her position based on blah, blah.

  2. Andrew says:

    This seems bad. Sarah Brady was always an obnoxious biddy. Mark Kelly is an astronaut whose photogenic wife was wounded and received constant coverage for months.

    • Matt says:

      Mark Kelly gets no more of a moral soapbox to stand above others and demand to restrict the rights of others than any other victim of violence, gun or otherwise.

      I understand the need to understand why things happened and engage in prevention. Often, such attempts are more soothe their own grief and come to terms with it than to truly help the problem. In my view, just another aspect of human nature.

      Celebrity status or not, when you begin advocating to use the powers of the state of strip the law-abiding of their rights and property, you are my enemy. I respect your accomplishments, I respect your right to hold and push those views but do not be surprised when you encounter iron resistance in the pursuit of your goals.

      • Harold says:

        Repeating a comment I made previously, that’s bourgeois truth; revolutionary truth (or call it “emotional truth”) is what really counts in this fight.

        Heck, I’m pretty sure most of us RKBA activists aren’t only in this because of our brains; e.g. I viscerally refuse to be disarmed in the face of our enemies, be they criminals or criminal governments.

        So however bogus their and the Bradys’ implicit claims of absolute moral authority, we’ve got to acknowledge the weight of their emotional pleas and act accordingly.

    • Bitter says:

      It could be. Because it’s a PAC, it may not make people feel “as good” about supporting it, so that could make it no different than any PAC that uses a particular issue to fundraise for partisan purposes. It’s tough to make a call at this point on which direction it is going to head.

      I remember when Americans for Gun Safety came out and was touted as the new great initiative that will get gun control passed, and that group went belly up pretty quickly. Trying to find grassroots level support in the gun control political game hasn’t worked very well for most new ventures. That’s why Bloomberg started his little anti-rights army of mayors instead. Even then, he has to lie to them and keep secrets about his planned ad buys and letters to DC in order to get many of them to stay in the group.

      It will be interesting to see their first filings on where the money is coming from and who it is going to pay. It will be even more interesting to see their second filings that won’t include the attention they are getting from this big media splash.

      • I totally agree with this. Follow the money, always follow the money. Without the money, their influence will be largely symbolic.

        • Harold says:

          Well, that’s true because their isn’t a big, “hard” and often single issue constituency for gun control. The eeeevil “NRA” (as the media et. al. portray all gun owners) is so strong because so many people, including plenty of non-members, vote, often enough in sufficient numbers to send very prominent politicians back home to spend more time with his family, such as former Speaker of the House Tom Foley (first sitting Speaker to be defeated since the Civil War era) and Al Gore in 2000.

          But let’s hope our political would be masters get enough of a clue that we don’t have to punish too many in 2014 and beyond because they passed a nasty bill.

      • Harold says:

        If this is a pure PAC, and not a 527 “Super PAC” (that can’t contribute to campaigns, e.g. the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) or a 501(c)(4) like the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), I wonder if it could have that much influence. We may know the NRA also has a PAC, the Political Victory Fund, but besides its politician ratings, which are perceived to have the full weight of the NRA behind them, how well do we remember it vs. the ILA or just the NRA in general?

        PAC maximum contributions aren’t all that large in the scheme of things, they’re more symbolic of who the organization wants to support. From Wikipedia:

        Federal multi-candidate PACs may contribute to candidates as follows:

        $5,000 to a candidate or candidate committee for each election (primary and general elections count as separate elections);

        $15,000 to a political party per year; and

        $5,000 to another PAC per year.

        PACs may make unlimited expenditures independently of a candidate or political party

        It’s the latter that could be problematic; I don’t know the rules and laws pertaining to that.

  3. StevieY43 says:

    I always wondered about why so many people talk about standing up to the all-powerful “gun lobby”. According to opensecrets.org, gun rights groups spent almost $4M lobbying in 2012. The pharmaceutical industry, for example, is #1 at $179M. You have to spend over $42M just to crack into the top 20. So why is the “gun lobby” so feared?

    I think the answer is because they have people behind it willing to make calls and write letters/emails. It’s not just corporations like the big-money lobbies, it’s many millions of citizens who don’t want their rights taken away.

    • It might also be the fact that the “gun lobby”, which I will presume is a code phrase for the NRA, so largely outclasses the “anti-gun lobby” in membership and financing, that the sympathetic media tries to bolster the image of the “anti-gun lobby” by boosting the size and strength of the NRA: i.e. Brady Campaign must be pretty effective because of the size of the NRA.

      The truth, that the Brady Campaign is small and getting smaller, does not fit the narrative. MAIG is only significant because of Bloombergs deep pockets.

    • Patrick H says:

      Its because of the people behind the gun lobby, who are the actually supporters. The reason they do this is because its easier to demonize a group that supposedly doesn’t recognize the wishes of the members/public than it is to demonize a group that is made up many members of the public who are getting exactly what they want.

    • Sigivald says:

      Part of it is that, in my impression, they really don’t understand actual grassroots support and unorganized lobbies (which much of “the gun lobby” is, though certainly the NRA does organization well enough).

      Most of the generic Left is so used to Organized Lobbying (see all the anti-war protests with nice professionally printed ISO/ANSWER posters, etc.) for everything that they forget there’s any other kind.

      (Just as people not on the Left forget how efficiently organized the other side’s lobbying gets, now and then.)

  4. Rob Crawford says:

    Pity (for them) the Giffords case is a perfect example of a politically connected lunatic being allowed to run the street until he finally commits an atrocity too big to ignore.

  5. Mike Gordon says:

    To the anti-gun crowd the N.R.A. is just another industry funded PAC. They don’t understand that it’s real power lies in it being a genuine grassroots organization. So they think all they need to counter it is another well funded PAC.

    • Harold says:

      Ignoring, of course, the NSSF, the true industry organization that’s about to put on this years SHOT Show. Their email newsletters are worth subscribing to, e.g. they just announced their corrected for CCW licensing NICS numbers for December 2012: 58% (!!!) over the previous December. And I gather that big of a correction, from 40 something percent, implies a whole of people getting CCW licenses in December, which we’ve heard anecdotal reports of.

      • Jeff says:

        At least in some states, it’s indicative of a year over year increase in CCW, not just December. I can’t remember which off the top of my head, but I remember that at least one state does monthly checks of CCW holders.

  6. Shootin' Buddy says:

    Battlefield weapons? Oh, like the Glocks that the Giffords own, the Glock pistol being invented for the Austrian Army and all to use on the battlefield.

    • Alpheus says:

      Or like those lever-action “hunting” rifles, which were never standard issue to our military, but were nonetheless popular with Northern soldiers during the Civil War…and in other wars, in other nations.

      • Sigivald says:

        Well, to be fairer than they deserve, the modern “standard hunting rifle we totally don’t want to ban” is far more powerful than the Henry rifle of the Civil War era.

        (Much as a modern self-loader is Far More Powerful than the Remington Model 8s the French used in the Great War…)

        I want to see the cognitive dissonance explode as these things are explained to them.

  7. Wally says:

    I wonder what salary Mark and Gabby will draw from this PAC?

  8. Fig says:

    My honest opinion? F.u.c.k. her and her husband. Dont you DARE even think about taking my gun rights away

  9. Bubblehead Les says:

    Two Things: Wally, since she was a Congress Critter, she gets a Pension for Life and all the Benefits. Her Husband retired from NASA, plus I think he had some Military Time to add to his Portfolio. So neither one of them may be “Rich”, but they won’t ever have to sweat whether to pay the Mortgage OR the Utilities.

    Second thing: when I heard the News that they decided to Jump onto the Anti-Freedom Wagon, the first thing that popped into my head was “Sarah Brady: The Next Generation.” So look forward to seeing Mark and Gabby around for the next 20-30 years.

    • Sigivald says:

      Yes, having served for five years, she’ll get the bare minimum pension for life, when she retires. Should cover her mortgage, when she retires, though.

      (Claims on the internet that serving in Congress at all gets you Your Full Salary For Life Immediately are simply false, despite being commonly presented via Facebook images and the like.

      Hell, the maximum after 30 years service is 80% of salary, I believe calculated from top-three-years.)

  10. John says:

    Quote from Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly Op-Ed: “This country is known for using its determination and ingenuity to solve problems, big and small. Wise policy has conquered disease, protected us from dangerous products and substances, and made transportation safer. But when it comes to protecting our communities from gun violence, we’re not even trying – and for the worst of reasons.”

    Liberty is not “the worst of reasons.” The Bill of Rights are NOT negotiable! Patrick Henry is rolling over in his grave ;-(

    • Harold says:

      No credible Space Shuttle pilot and commander should ever implicitly credit the government with making “transportation safer”.

  11. Zermoid says:

    Seems strange for her to go after gun owners, since a guy with his own gun was the one who stopped the shooter. This was mentioned VERY briefly in one interview of the man (that I saw anyway) then all mention of it disappeared.

    • Bitter says:

      No, I don’t think that’s the case. I believe that after all was wrapped up in the reporting and the full investigation, it was found that the guy who was lawfully carrying nearby was only able to assist after the gunman was already tackled. People in the immediate area tackled the shooter when he dropped the magazine he was getting ready to reload.

    • Harold says:

      Agreed with Bitter, the armed citizen that arrived had a shoot/don’t shoot decision since the gun had been wrestled out of the shooter’s hands and was being held by someone else, but made the right call. This has come up recently as some gun grabbers have argued this scenario, despite the correct call, is evidence armed citizens would cause more harm than good in a mass shooting incident.

  12. PEGGY GRAHAM says:

    OPERATION GABBY

    Seeing Gabby Gifford and Mark Kelly on television was an eye opener. When Gabby said, “Enough is enough!” it stabbed my heart. No two people would be a better face of SHEMP, the Sandy Hook Ethics and Manners Project.

    I am still STUNNED by SANDY HOOK. Even though I was on vacation in Maui, I kept bursting into tears about the tragedy. I now have a suggestion about what good could come out of this abomination. I suggest that WE turn Sandy Hook Elementary School into a training center for the SANDY HOOK ETHICS AND MANNERS PROGRAM. Perhaps, Bill Gates and/or Warren Buffet could provide the seed money.

    PART ONE WOULD BE IN THE SCHOOLS: We get experts together and set up a curriculum that starts in Kindergarten through extends through Seniors in High School.

    People should learn basic manners and ethics. We know from the “60 Minutes” segment that children make value judgments as young as 2 months old. Parenting is inconsistent and religion is not allowed in the school, but basic manners and good judgment can be taught.

    We could start with “Mean Week”. They could get permission to play “Mean” by Taylor Swift after the announcements every day in every school. No one is allowed to be Mean for a week. The only mean thing they can do is to yell at anyone else who is being mean. They are allowed to Yell at the kid who is being “Mean” and tell them to “Stop being Mean or I will Stop being their friend.” They would learn all week about what being mean involves, including bullying.

    PART TWO IS ABOUT SCHOOL LEADERS LEARNING ETHICS AND MANNERS.

    Everyone in power at Penn State who knew about Sandusky’s behavior should be ashamed. Suing the school is not enough. We need an ethics and manners course for college staff.

    THOSE KIDS AND THE ADULTS HIDING THEM IN STEUBENVILLE, ESPECIALLY THE COACHING STAFF, ARE JUST THE LATEST ABOMINATION. Did you see those boys in that Steubenville video. We don’t have time to argue about religion. We need non- partisan action now.

    Parenting is inconsistent and religion is not allowed in the school, but basic manners and good judgment need to be taught now.

    All High School and College Coaches, Staff and Executives get ethics and manners straining. They really need it. Stop the scandals before they happen. They are behaving like a third work country.

    PART THREE IS CLEANING UP CONGRESS.

    They all need an ethics and manners classes. Their behavior is a joke. They make us look like a third world country. They create problems, fight with each other in the meanest, rudest possible ways and wait until we are at the brink of a collapse to fix the problem. They have a lower approval rating than President Nixon did during Watergate and that was a Felony. They need to clean up their act or be voted out of office.

    They need to pass immediate legislation outlawing insider trading from information gleaned from their jobs.
    The children of Congressmen should have to repay their student loans. All laws passed to protect people from sexual harassment, discrimination and other business problems need to apply to all government, including Congress.

    Congressmen no longer get pay raises. They only get Cost of Living raises. The want belts tightened. Let’s start with them. They would no longer get separate Congressional pensions for the rest of their lives. Depending on the years they serve, they get that many years of service toward Social Security. Somehow, they will find a way to fix that program.

    We allow “K Street” lobbyist to peddle influence carving out tax breaks and exceptions in the law that save companies billions. We bribe Congressmen with Pork for their votes, like money for fishing in Alaska or Algae Research in the Hurricane Sandy bill.

    PART FOUR IS FOCUS ON THE MENTALLY ILL AND ADDICTED.

    People are being murdered by people who are very, very crazy, but in the 70’s and 80’s states were tired of being threatened with exposure of abuse in secure mental institutions. The faceless government bureaucrats decided it was too expensive and “no win” situation. A group of nasty shrinks used the excuse that some of the mentally ill who were in mental institutions should not be there. They were in danger from poorly trained hospital staff. Instead of cleaning up the institutions, they closed them down, using the excuse that the mentally ill deserve the “least restrictive environment.” That is code for closing the mental institutions and throwing the chronically mentally ill and dangerous out on the streets. I was there when they created Group Homes for the Mentally Ill. It made it possible for the mentally ill to repeatedly walk out of Group Homes, stop taking their meds and be a danger to themselves. They become homeless and vulnerable to criminals.

    In other cases, their illnesses resurface and, in some cases, they hurt themselves and/or others. One person pushed an innocent brown faced man onto the tracks of a subway train, because they he was a Muslim. Some of these people shoot up a college, try to kill a Congresswoman, a movie theatre, or kill 20 innocent angels and their six guardian angels at an elementary.

    At that point, the prosecution tries to prove they are NOT crazy. The Defense tries to prove they are crazy. Who are they trying to fool. They are all mentally ill. They may know the difference between right and wrong, but are still crazy and should not be in prison. Prisons are not a substitute for mental institutions. Mental patients should not be placed in the general prison population to protect all parties.

    We need to stop ignoring our mentally ill and make sure they get the help they need. If they can live in a non- secure setting and take their meds, they can be in the community. We should set up sheltered workshops to assist them in being successful, not just throw money at them and hope they will go away.

    For those who refuse to take their medication and a dangerous to themselves or others, they should be put away in small, local, secure facilities and given meaningful treatment. Three days in an inpatient unit and dumping them out on the street doesn’t work.

    PART FOUR IS FOCUSING ON OUR RETURNING VETERANS:

    They fought for us. Some were injured for us. Some are physically disabled. Others have Post Traumatic Stress Distorder. We need to make Vets our priority. They are our heroes. We need HEROES. It is good for America. They need Retraining, Mental Health Treatment, Marriage Counseling and Job Placement Help. Nothing Is too good for our vets.

    PART FIVE FOCUSES ON GUN LAW CHANGES:

    My answer to guns is very simple. Stop selling semi-automatic weapons and weapons clips with more than 10 rounds in them. Sportsmen can take 4.6 seconds to change clips. Don’t take guns away. After you ban the semi-automatics, you buy them back at twice the price. You also add two zeros to the number of rounds in each clip and buy them back. A 10 round clip is good for $1000. For a 20 round clip, the government pays $2000 in tax free cash. For a thirty rounds clip, the government pays $3000. Pay by the round. We protect our Constitutional rights, but we also require background checks on everyone in the household of a gun buyer. We get around HIPA privacy rights by putting a big red X by someone’s name who is a danger to himself or others. If you live in a home with a Red X’d person, guns must be locked up. No exceptions. Tell the NRA they can keep their guns, but greenbacks are better than blood splatters.

    The America we knew is going away. With bad politicians, ignoring our Vets, pretending mental illness is a character flaw, instead of an illness, allowing children to grow up without ethics and manners, we are becoming more like Syria, Russia, the Congo or China. We need to change back to the best of the old America, not the intolerant part, but the more tolerant. Parents aren’t parenting. Our Congress is behaving badly. Our soldiers are being ignored by those who for whom they fought. We did it to the lawyers. Let’s start teaching ethics and manners with the children now. Follow up by teaching school officials, government employees and anyone who does business who does business with the federal government. LET’S GO BIG.

    AS GABBY SAID, “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH” SOMETHING MUST BE DONE NOW.

    • Exurbankevin says:

      I think you mistake CAPITALIZATION for persuasive arguments in favour of limiting my ability to defend my family from the Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas of the world.

      The cop’s reaction time to Sandy Hook was 20 minutes. My reaction time to an active shooter is measured in feet per second.

      • Bitter says:

        Yeah, it is funny how someone ranting with the caps lock on wants to lecture us on having manners.

      • Jeff says:

        While I agree with your point 100%, the engineer in me cringes every time someone says this. Feet per second is a unit of velocity, not time.

    • Patrick H says:

      I know you are troll, but for others reading, this needs fisked:

      “My answer to guns is very simple. Stop selling semi-automatic weapons and weapons clips with more than 10 rounds in them. Sportsmen can take 4.6 seconds to change clips. ”

      Then with the 20 minutes the Newtown shooter had, what is the purpose of banning mag clips? He could have done just as much damage. Killers can plan on taking many- if I’m defending myself I may only have one to grab. 30 is better than 10.

      And banning semi-autos wouldn’t stop Newtown anyway, a hunting shotgun could do just as much damage.

      “We protect our Constitutional rights”

      You have a funny definition of that.

  13. PEGGY GRAHAM says:

    I prepared a Proposal, not a FB post or a Tweet. I used Proper Grammar and punctuation. I am an old lady. Who decided all caps was yelling? There was no vote. Is that all you got out of my Proposal? I DID NOT suggest taking away anyone’s guns.I may even buy my own hand gun. I did suggest that only law enforcement and soldiers need semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, keep them, UNLESS you want money for them. YOUR Choice. Are you too LAZY to change magazines. I think ten rounds per magazine is enough. Just buy 2 or 3 or 4. Maybe the next crazy’s gun will jam when he is changing the magazine or someone can tackle him. Isn’t ten dead bodies of babies or teachers or firemen enough for the NRA? Did you read my proposal or did the Capital Letters prevent you from concentrating?

    • Did you miss internet 101? Why should we pay attention to someone who is too stupid to properly use bold and italic html tags to properly emphasize her points? You see the reason capital letters are yelling is because it is louder than the rest of your writing, it stands out and draws your attention in a manner as to distract you from the rest of the writing. Quite like yelling.

      Second, you’re calling my wife with radial nerve palsy who cannot easily change magazines lazy? You’re calling every other disabled person lazy? You’re saying that they have no right to effective self-defense because they cannot quickly change magazines? For someone with that condition they enter the fight with just the ammunition they have in the weapon.

      Also as a side note, if “normal capacity”, they are normal since that is what my weapon was designed to use, are only useful for mass murder, why do law enforcement officers use those same weapons? They’re reacting in defense of themselves just the same as we are.

      I didn’t shoot anyone, and neither did the rest of the law abiding gun owners but you advocate the confiscation of their property by force of government.

      As for your last comment:

      Maybe the next crazy’s gun will jam when he is changing the magazine or someone can tackle him. Isn’t ten dead bodies of babies or teachers or firemen enough for the NRA?

      Did you miss the fact that the Sandy Hook shooter ran wild for 20 minutes before the police arrived and was constantly changing his magazines. Very few had more than half the rounds shot out.

      You’re directing your anger at an inanimate object and those who own them. You would rather disrupt the rights of those people for merely owning property because it would make you feel better. In the end though it would have done nothing to change the outcome.

  14. PEGGY GRAHAM says:

    I am not too stupid to realize that you are baiting me and using your wife’s disability to do it. I have not suggested that we take guns or magazines away from anyone. PAY ATTENTION.
    Everyone who is allowed to legally own guns should own guns to protect themselves, including me.

    I am just tired of crazy people using loopholes in the laws to murder innocent people. You should be, too. If someone is now or ever has been a danger to themselves or others, their shrinks should report them to the police and have them committed. They should not be thrown out of school or college or imprisoned on some charge when everyone knew they were crazy. They shouldn’t by hospitalized for 3 days, drugged up and released back onto the streets to push someone off a subway platform or microwave their baby. Unlike you, I know this is not all about guns.If we did something to protect society from the mentally ill and to protect them from themselves, we wouldn’t need so many gun laws.

    • Name one “loophole” that was used. Last I checked murder was illegal.

      I never said mental health wasn’t an issue. You however stated exactly as I quoted along with:

      Are you too LAZY to change magazines. I think ten rounds per magazine is enough. Just buy 2 or 3 or 4.

      As well as:

      After you ban the semi-automatics, you buy them back at twice the price. You also add two zeros to the number of rounds in each clip and buy them back. A 10 round clip is good for $1000. For a 20 round clip, the government pays $2000 in tax free cash. For a thirty rounds clip, the government pays $3000. Pay by the round.

      And if I refuse to sell them back? I don’t think you understand the laws of economics. The exact scheme you describe minus a “buy back” was implemented with full-auto with the Hugh’s amendment. Want to guess what a cheap full auto goes for (ie ~500 dollars at the time of manufacture MSRP pre-ban)? If you guess as much as new car, you’d be right. So tell me, given the laws of economics, limited supply and demand, how would that “buy back” resemble fair market prices? It wouldn’t, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to their actual worth.

      This also disregards the fact that our country is broke and going into debt at such a rate that something is going to have to break. Tell me, where does the money for this program come from? Many easily have enough magazines under your 3000 stipend to make 300000 easy, if not more. Magazines are disposable items and wear out, often they’re rebuilt but usually at a later time. Just buy a new one, they’re cheap.

      Then lets look at:

      Stop selling semi-automatic weapons and weapons clips with more than 10 rounds in them.

      Along with:

      I have not suggested that we take guns or magazines away from anyone.

      Yes you have, what happens if my wife’s firearm breaks, or magazines wear out. I can’t buy a new one under your plan. You have effectively banned her from ownership by preventing her from being able to replace them.

      The second you argue that more gun laws need to exist to solve the problem you’ve lost the debate. We will not compromise, we’ve been doing that since 1934 and enough is enough.

      If you want to argue orthogonal solutions, I and many others are all ears. You try and argue that the rights of the law abiding need to be further infringed and we will not discuss it with you any further. We are not willing to cede ground, we are not willing to negotiate, we are not willing to have more of our rights abridged because the actions of a lone madman.

      So here’s my tip if you’re wanting to engage in a discussion regarding this topic, don’t try and argue for gun control. Talk orthogonal solutions, if you touch guns (your “fifth” (actually sixth, you screwed up counting) part), you’re going to turn everyone off and you’re promptly going to be dismissed. Those who don’t dismiss you are going to center on that exact topic, why? Because we will not accept any further infringement of our rights.

  15. PEGGY GRAHAM says:

    I am NOT trying to take your guns away. People can give or sell their guns to anyone without a background check. I have to pass an FBI check to be a substitute teacher. Everyone who has been adjudicated “a danger to themselves or others” should not be allowed to live in a house with a gun, unless the gun owner has a secure gun safe with no key. All adjudicated mentally ill people should be reported to the FBI. They don’t need to know what is wrong with that person. They just need a Big, Red X by their name. That’s it.

    • I hate to break it to you but yes you are. Every last time something like this comes up people come in like you arguing for this and that. What matters right now is what you’re arguing for would require registration to enforce properly. In order to verify every sale goes through an FFL, you would need to have every firearm registered, period.

      Now currently you have legislators in NY, California, and other states wanting to Confiscate firearms and if there was registration they could easily do it. Welcome to the real world, it isn’t black and white and legislation can have unforeseen consequences later down the road.

      It is already illegal for a prohibited person to purchase a firearm, (felony). It is also illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person (felony). You also cannot sell a firearm to someone who is not a resident of your state (felony). You also cannot purchase a firearm for another person (felony), read straw purchase.

      But lets humor you for a minute. Lets say they open up NICS so that any Tom, Dick, and Harry can call in and run a background check. Currently the NICS service cannot even handle every day demand, much less every private party sale going on. Then to add that icing, what is to stop the buyer from giving false information to the seller? Never mind the fact that many people get a “delayed” status from NICS. The way delayed works, unless we call you back he’s clear but give us 72 hours. So now you have serious delays and effort required for a simple transaction. Why because the service is so overloaded that they need more time to shift the burden of processing.

      So other than delaying someone from their constitutional rights what did you buy? Because here’s the real problem.

      If someone is such a danger to themselves or society that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, they cannot be trusted in society. They cannot be trusted with a knife, matches, gasoline, or a car. All of which can easily be used to kill people. Your focus is on the tool as if somehow that magically makes it different. Is it really different if someone lights a house on fire and burns to death everyone inside? Is it really different if someone had taken their car and run over a bunch of 1st graders at a bus stop?

      No argument that there are people who are a danger to society and it is exceedingly difficult to get the help they need as well as doing what’s best for society. No argument that the system needs to change.

      But then you keep saying things like this:

      I am NOT trying to take your guns away.

      Here is all of your last section you wrote:

      My answer to guns is very simple. Stop selling semi-automatic weapons and weapons clips with more than 10 rounds in them. Sportsmen can take 4.6 seconds to change clips. Don’t take guns away. After you ban the semi-automatics, you buy them back at twice the price. You also add two zeros to the number of rounds in each clip and buy them back. A 10 round clip is good for $1000. For a 20 round clip, the government pays $2000 in tax free cash. For a thirty rounds clip, the government pays $3000. Pay by the round. We protect our Constitutional rights, but we also require background checks on everyone in the household of a gun buyer. We get around HIPA privacy rights by putting a big red X by someone’s name who is a danger to himself or others. If you live in a home with a Red X’d person, guns must be locked up. No exceptions. Tell the NRA they can keep their guns, but greenbacks are better than blood splatters.

      Again in order to properly enforce your idea it will require registration and you stated the following:

      Stop selling semi-automatic weapons and weapons clips with more than 10 rounds in them…. After you ban the semi-automatics…

      That is a ban, you even call it such, period end of discussion. If you ban something, you are preventing others from obtaining it at a minimum. At it’s worst you eventually confiscate the rest in fairness citing “you don’t need them obviously since no one else can buy them.” Your ban you are arguing for would “grandfather” existing firearms. What happens when a politician decides to remove the “grandfather” clause.

      Your last section has nothing to do with the mental health or any of that. It is an attack on an inanimate object and is the pure definition of fetishism. Your last section is the classic move by politicians to attach garbage to something that most everyone could agree with. Then when someone disagrees on that point you ignore it and say, “How can you disagree with the rest of that?”

      In other words I have to eat your garbage because I might agree with what you said elsewhere? That’s not how this works. I can disagree with a single point and call you on it. Others can disagree and call you on it. You can’t then just throw your statement to the wayside and claim you didn’t say that or it doesn’t matter because of what you previously said.

      You either want a ban on semi-autos, in which case you’re prohibiting the rights of others, or you don’t. You already stated you do and your response is well I didn’t mean it that way. Look, if you want to argue about mental health, do so, don’t tack a “and ban semi-auto firearms” to the end of it. You started with an orthogonal solution and then biffed it by putting something in there that shouldn’t have been.

      The rights of law abiding gun owners have been nibbled at since the day’s of Jim Crow and large attacks started in 1934. Tell me would you prevent sober drivers from driving cars? If not then why do you want to prevent honest law abiding people from being able to have guns, including those you disagree with? Because honestly that’s what gun control is, you cannot control the criminal, just the law abiding.

  16. PEGGY GRAHAM says:

    Do you not know what the word “BAN” means. Are you so impotent that you don’t think Americans can protect themselves from an Imaginary Hitler or Imaginary Stalin or Imaginary Castro. How many Angels and Guardian Angels have to die? Facebook, Twitter, Fox News Protects us. We need to teach people manners and ethics NOW!!!

    —–Original Message—–

    • Yes I do know what the word ban means. Here is the definition since you obviously don’t.

      Verb
      Officially or legally prohibit: “he was banned from driving for a year”.

      You want to ban (legally prohibit) people from getting semi-automatic firearms. Your statement. You seem to think that things magically happen and there are no side effects from your magical legislation suggestions.

      You are focusing again on the weapon and then turn around and say how man more must die? We need manners and ethics! You think the internet and news media protects you? Tell me, how did that work out in the Middle East? It was all through social media? You seem to be under the delusion that “it can’t happen here.” Tell that to Vicky or Sammy Weaver. Tell that to the interned Japanese who had their property stolen from them. Tell that to the dead at Waco. It can happen hear and your obsession with banning a tool merely serves to prevent someone from exercising their choice and defense of their life.

      You want morals and ethics? Tell me how is it moral or ethical to punish innocent people for the behavior of another. How is it moral or ethical to hold someone accountable and responsible for the actions of someone else? How is it moral or ethical to consider one class of victims worth more than another? How is it ethical or moral to think that one type of violent crime is worse than another merely by the tool used?

      You seem to think that I and the millions of gun owners like me had something to do with “Angels and Guardian Angels” dying. No, the majority of us would have fought to save their lives. Instead people like you, disarm us and insist that it is for our own well being. Instead people like you seem to think that banning inanimate objects will some how solve the problem. Instead people like you think criminals will observe laws, but instead all you do is create a victim disarmerment zone for the criminal where his victims cannot fight back.

      The fact is, you are arguing to restrict the rights of the law abiding in an effort to some how control the actions of a criminal. This was proven already to have no effect on crime, yet you would disarm us. Instead of focusing on mental health, like you claim, your obsession has been to support and defend your gun ban. You want us disarmed and your side has shown what you really want in the end.

      Understand this, we will not negotiate with regards to the rights of gun owners any more. Any solution you want to have our support on will need to be orthogonal. Attacking the rights of the innocent is not acceptable and no amount of spin will make you morally or ethically justified in doing so.

  17. PEGGY GRAHAM says:

    You can have a hundred 10 round clips if you want them. I will shout. I WANT YOU TO KEEP YOUR GUNS, unless you are crazy or a criminal. I don’t want crazy people to get them. I want people to pass background checks. If you do that now, the far left won’t get to take away your guns later. We just had
    another shooter at a school. Pretty soon people will overreact because like you will not compromise. You are being irrational now. Wake up and look around before it is too late. Why can no one find the middle ground?

    • Jeff says:

      Why can you not understand the simple fact that if you’re advocating a *BAN* that saying “I WANT YOU TO KEEP YOUR GUNS” is a lie?

    • JK says:

      PLEASE! Peggy, if you are going to argue about this, use the correct terminology! It is a “magazine” not a “clip”.

  18. PEGGY GRAHAM says:

    We just had a 5 year old killed in Guernsey County, Ohio in a murder suicide. That is not even a 100 miles from Steubenville, Ohio. That was the same day as the California School shooting. Enough Is Enough. It is time to stop talking and start acting.

    • And I’m the one being irrational? Let me get this straight, you hear about something bad happening, go into an emotional response to “do something” and that is rational?

      I suggest you watch this, it’s a set of rules regarding how to correctly cope with tragedy.

      Why do I bring all this up? Where’s your emotional “do something” for all of these instances? You scream, rant, and rave about how guns are the problem, while disregarding the fact that while gun ownership has increased, violent crime has been trending downward. Despite claims by talking heads in the media, Great Britain isn’t so great in the violent crime department.

      It isn’t the tool, it’s the person using it. Your focus is set on the tool and it doesn’t matter who’s behind it unless that person is anointed by the government with a badge. Never-mind the fact that law enforcement isn’t the shiny beacon of perfection that many make it out to be.

      Never-mind the fact though that statistically it has been shown over and over that those who have concealed weapons permits are more law abiding than the rest of the public. Yet you would disarm them (you said so yourself, you want a ban, you can not claim to let people have arms and want a ban, choose one or the other).

      So you call me irrational, I present facts and statistics, you present bleeding heart emotion. I present a rational case with evidence that it isn’t the tools, it’s the person. You present a case of tragedy and say “start acting”. Acting to what who really knows other than previously you said to ban semi-automatic weapons. Who’s the irrational person? I’ve already explained over and over that attacking firearms will result in no support from this side of the debate. You must present orthogonal solutions that work for both sides. You cannot tell us to cede ground as a compromise when there are alternative solutions that are actually amicable to both sides.

      If you want a discussion, be prepared to hear from the other side that some things you say they consider abhorrent and down right not acceptable. For instance you would probably consider my solution of getting rid of gun-free zones and allowing any one with a valid concealed carry permit to carry into a school. It would certainly cut the response down from 20 minutes and remove it from the list of disarmed victims in a game preserve.

      So either pay attention to the discussion, or it isn’t a discussion it’s a lecture. You’re trying to lecture us on what will happen and we’re saying, “piss off.” We let you say your piece, we listened, we rebutted, and now you’re upset at the rebuttal saying, “Just shut up and take it.” That isn’t a discussion, it’s a lecture.

  19. Don Smathers says:

    The gun lobby is out of control. I’m glad that there are more organizations working to end the mad rush to Mad Maxdom that is gripping the middle of the country. There’s no reason for me to put a nuclear tipped SRBM in by backyard just “in case” the Tea Party wingnuts finally go off the deep end and I need to take out a few of their fortresses and there is also no reason for those wingnuts to carry assault rifles or semi-automatic pistols, or any of that crap. Let’s disarm now and stop the violence.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Democrats: Doing Very, Very Well by Doing Good | Daily Pundit - [...] Democrats: Doing Very, Very Well by Doing Good Posted on January 8, 2013 9:30 …
  2. SayUncle » They only know the one song - [...] New gun control group started after new high profile victim. [...]
  3. I’m sure someone’s fuming - The Minuteman - [...] believe me?  Let’s look at a conversation that happened over at Sebastian’s place.  I’m going to post it here …
top