The Brady Campaign pointed out:
From that flows the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with the effects of their gun advocacy — such as forcing families and children to accept semi-automatic pistols or assault weapons in the local Starbucks or other restaurant — is the same as those who refused service to African-Americans at a Woolworth’s lunch counter.
Funny they should point that out, because as Dave Kopel has the rest of the story about civil rights sit-ins that they’d probably prefer not to acknowledge.
I would hope the Brady Campaign would be embarrassed publishing something this stupid.
The Brady Campaign is a group that lies, twists the truth, and lobbies legal solutions for emotional problems.
And in the end their entire platform is one of pure bigotry.
Do they have any shame? No they do not!
I truly suspect that the Brady Campaign is losing whatever composure and professionalism they had.
Their stuff reads like that of a second-rate blogger after a couple too many drinks … not a large, professional organization that holds sway in the legislature or in the public opinion.
I for one am glad to see it … to see ever more hysterical stuff out of them.
The second amendment community would be wise to carefully consider their responses to them at this point. These are issues of character and integrity … and we need to stay above the fray. We are going to be in this for the long haul … and the Bradys might not be
“From that flows the conclusion…”
Well, since the premise is wrong, there is no “flow” to the conclusion, either logically or illogically.
The premise presented by the Brady writer is that gun use is like race or gender, an immutable characteristic. This is a convenient straw man. The actual premise presented by gun rights advocates is that the exercise of human rights are not subject to veto by the offense, real or imagined, this exercise may cause to the sensibility of others. The “veto by heckler” example comes to mind.
Straw man argument, meet the scythe.