Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Great news for residents of Illinois and Wisconsin

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southwest Virginia
    Posts
    188

    Post imported post

    We all know the the mindless followers of the Brady Bunch rarely make any logical sense nor do they usually even have basic facts straight regarding technical aspects of firearms, gun laws, and crime statistics.

    We're talking about the basic information they need to further their anti-gun pro-slavery campaign! And they don't even know that.

    All they have are their personal phobias and blind hate combned with a hodge-poge of fake statistics and logical fallacies to give them the appearance of credibility to those easily swayed (namely, fellow collectivist drones).

    I have rarely visited their website but did so just now purely out of curiosity. It seems they have reached a new low of misinforming the public. I hadn't browsed five minutes when I found this. Here is Brady summary of concealed carry laws:

    "Thirty-five states have “shall-issue” laws forcing police to issue concealed handgun permits. Eleven states have “may-issue” laws that give local law enforcement officials discretion over who gets a concealed handgun permit and how many are allowed in each jurisdiction. Two states, Wisconsin and Illinois, do not require a permit to carry concealed handguns in publicwhile two states forbid the carrying of concealed handguns."

    http://www.bradycampaign.org/statele...laces/carrying

    Amazing they somehow missed that those two states that forbid it are Illinois and Wisconsin.:quirky As many followers as they must have in Chicago....how the hell could they screw that up? Or maybe they don't have that many followers.

    It's like they're not even trying (if they ever did). Faced with years of reversals to their cause, it's like all they can do now is whine. And make it up as they go along.

    I'm not even going to waste my time informing them of the blatant inaccuracies on their website. They're no longer worth the attention.

    Even if Congress tries another gun-ban, my sense is the Bradys will have very little direct connection with it.

    They're becoming very irrelevant, very fast, and they know it. What little prestige they have the pro-gun lobby itself is giving them by mentioning their name. They really don't deserve to be acknowledged at all.


  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604

    Post imported post

    Why would anyone not seeing things their way correct their sophomoric editing? Let the errors stand - it only shows their ignorance.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    I had to go look at the site myself because I was in disbelief and thought the OP did a little creative editing on the snip & paste to the forum.

    WTF?! these people are actually this misinformed and clueless, but our tax dollars are used to further their agenda? is the Brady-bunch being run out of some old womans basement in D.C. by her semi-retarded grandson.

    And this is the group that successfully lobbies several levels of the govt to make policies?

    I copy and pasted that entire page into a text file for future reference.

    I hope mobody contacts them to correct the mistakes on that page, this should be used to publicly embarrass them and to show they make up lies and spew misleading information to further their misguided quest.



  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    If they have a web administrator worth any salt at all, they will notice the increased traffic to that page, trace it from the referring link here, and see what the hubub is about. If.

    TFred


  5. #5
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    :celebrate:celebrate I'll carry everywhere in the state starting tomorrow! If the Brady group says it it must be true!! :celebrate:celebrate

  6. #6
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    lockman wrote:
    :celebrate:celebrate I'll carry everywhere in the state starting tomorrow! If the Brady group says it it must be true!! :celebrate:celebrate
    If the brady bunch told the truth it must have been by accident. It'd also be a first.
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    lockman wrote:
    :celebrate:celebrate I'll carry everywhere in the state starting tomorrow! If the Brady group says it it must be true!! :celebrate:celebrate
    Since the Bradys are considered experts on the subject (many courts have certified them as expert witnesses), are they liable if someone acts in reliance on the information they provide?

    No, I'm not going to take a road trip to test that theory.

    Question for the lawyers/attorneys - what's the legal theory on intentionally publishing false information? (My brain is not up to speed yet, but keeps trying to tell me there is either a law against it or there oughta be one.)

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    They seem obsessed with CC, don't they? I wonder what they would have to say about the 42 states that allow OC, with 20 something not requiring a permit to do so?

    They worry about people carrying guns that might be "unstable"? What about "unstable idiots" that attempt to persuade legislators?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southwest Virginia
    Posts
    188

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    I had to go look at the site myself because I was in disbelief and thought the OP did a little creative editing on the snip & paste to the forum.
    Believe me, our opponents furnish more than enough ammunition (no pun) for indictment of their ignorance without me needing to make up anything.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Virginian683 wrote:
    Nutczak wrote:
    I had to go look at the site myself because I was in disbelief and thought the OP did a little creative editing on the snip & paste to the forum.
    Believe me, our opponents furnish more than enough ammunition (no pun) for indictment of their ignorance without me needing to make up anything.
    I copied and pasted the Brady spewing in the WI thread, good job finding that BTW!

    Skidmark brings up an interesting observation too!

    There are a few landmark cases in WI that case law states " you can legally conceal a firearm if your right to self-defense outweighs the state prohibition on concealed carry"
    This can be seen in State V. Vegas, and again in State V. Hamden.

    I do not want to be a test case for this!
    Then we have other case law that states to carry a firearm in a vehicle, it must be discernible from the interior of the vehicle by passersby and other vehicles on the roadway!
    Then even more case law that contradicts that conclusion in State V. Alloy where it states the weapon must be transported out of reach, but mentions that anywhere in the passenger compartment is within reach even if the gun is kept in a case.

    I believe there is something like 77 conflicting firearm laws in WI!
    I recently sent a letter to the Admin of www.handgunlaw.us so they can correct the mistakes concerning WI on their web-page, and he expects it to be corrected in a weekaccording tohis expedient reply.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Seems like a good example of the "blind leading the blind".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •