Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Brady Bunch caught lying (again). I called them on it!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757

    Brady Bunch caught lying (again). I called them on it!

    Brady Campaign Battles Against Concealed Carry Bill

    http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...led-carry-bill

    This article was apparently written by the Brady Campaign. I read it and was so enraged that I just had to post a rebuttal. I don't like to accuse real human beings who have feelings and a conscience of waging a deliberate misinformation campaign, but sadly it was necessary to do so.

    Some excerpts:

    "'We urge the American people to say no to giving licenses to kill to violent people, who are waiting for opportunities to unleash their firepower on strangers, public servants, and loved ones alike,' said Dennis Henigan, Acting President of the Brady Campaign."

    ". . . some of the worst concealed carry killers . . [include] the notorious Tucson shooter, Jared Lee Loughner . . ."


    Anyway here is my response:

    Submitted by OC4me on Sep 13, 2011.

    As usual, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Lawful Gun Ownership spins deliberate lies!

    They 'claim' that Jared Lee Loughner was one of the worst concealed carry killers. Well what they don't tell you is that virtually all, if not all, gun crimes are committed by criminals who carry concealed (without a license as in Loughner's case) as that has been the modus operandi of criminals for centuries.

    The Brady Campaign is deliberately leading the readers of its article into believing that Jared Lee Loughner was a licensed concealed weapons holder. Read the article again ... yes you were duped, weren't you?

    Here is the Brady Campaign's deliberate omission: Jared Lee Loughner DID NOT HAVE a concealed carry license. Period! Full stop!

    The Brady Campaign is intentionally equating unlicensed concealed carry by the bad guys with licensed concealed carry by the good guys. The difference - you guessed it - a license!

    Given the actual facts, the very best that the Brady Campaign could possibly argue is that since Jared Lee Loughner could have gotten a license (even though he didn't), it follows that law-abiding citizens should not be able to get a license. In other words, the Brady Campaign is promoting victim disarmament as a crime-fighting strategy.

    Shame on you Brady Campaign! Shame, shame, shame!
    Last edited by OC4me; 09-13-2011 at 02:38 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    10
    you are right, but unfortunately Arizona does not require a license to lawfully conceal a firearm. he was legal in carrying, his crime was his intent and commission of a violent crime.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Wyler-David View Post
    you are right, but unfortunately Arizona does not require a license to lawfully conceal a firearm. he was legal in carrying, his crime was his intent and commission of a violent crime.
    Fortunately, Arizona DOES NOT require a license to 'lawfully' conceal a firearm. It is illegal to carry a firearm (concealed or otherwise) with the intent to commit a crime.

    Loughner was definately NOT LEGAL in carrying at all (with his illegal intent). Why is it unfortunate that the law-abiding good Citizens of Arizona are somehow not burdoned by a requirement to jump hoops for a license to lawfully conceal a firearm? I'm confused, really. Kindly explain, thanks!
    Last edited by OC4me; 09-13-2011 at 12:17 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    131

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Fortunately, Arizona DOES NOT require a license to 'lawfully' conceal a firearm. It is illegal to carry a firearm (concealed or otherwise) with the intent to commit a crime.

    Loughner was definately NOT LEGAL in carrying at all (with his illegal intent). Why is it unfortunate that the law-abiding good Citizens of Arizona are somehow not burdoned by a requirement to jump hoops for a license to lawfully conceal a firearm? I'm confused, really. Kindly explain, thanks!


    where's the thumbs up icon? Well regardless thumbs up for you! I read your reply on the website over there too!

    Laws only apply to "Law Abiding" citizens. Jared was not Law Abiding, Arizona is a wonderful state, and if it wasnt so darned hot there, I would love to live in Tucson!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Wyler-David View Post
    you are right, but unfortunately Arizona does not require a license to lawfully conceal a firearm. he was legal in carrying, his crime was his intent and commission of a violent crime.
    Not unfortunately. He was already a prohibited possessor due to his illegal marijuana use. It is also illegel to carry concealed with intent to commit another crime. But with all criminals the thought of breaking the law is not a deterant
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Wyler-David View Post
    you are right, but unfortunately Arizona does not require a license to lawfully conceal a firearm. he was legal in carrying, his crime was his intent and commission of a violent crime.
    What is unfortunate about it? Criminals don't care about the law and CC even without permits. Additionally if someone is CCing then people shouldn't know which means that there is no realistic way to stop them until after they have used the weapon. Additionally in many places it is illegal to stop someone w/o RAS and simply having a gun isn't RAS. Which means that even if a cop were to see someone carrying a weapon (and this applies to CC as well; depending on state laws regarding things like printing) they couldn't simply stop someone and ask to "see their papers" without RAS.

    The licensing scheme is just that. A tax and feel-good scheme that doesn't accomplish anything in regards to actually stopping crime.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Polynikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    182
    The link is not currently working. I guess a few feathers got ruffled by your response.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." - Judge Learned Hand

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Yea there were multiple responses that tore apart the article and gave actual cites. The article only said things like "in a study..." but didn't give anything that one could actually reference to try and cross check.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by Polynikes View Post
    The link is not currently working. I guess a few feathers got ruffled by your response.
    Site off-line
    Opposing Views is currently under maintenance. We should be back shortly. Thank you for your patience. .

    Probably! None of the other comments were making the Brady's look good.
    Last edited by OC4me; 09-13-2011 at 06:31 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    It's back up and there's another ripping them to pieces!
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  11. #11
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    I am not for sure, however I do believe that Arizona still will issue a CHL (or whatever they call it) for carry in states that will accept it when travelling. Regardless of the facts that AZ is Constitutional Carry. The article wholeheartedly attempts to mislead the reader.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    That is correct Arizona still issues CCW permits, you can use it for reciprocity or when purchasing from a FFL you don't have to go through a NICS check
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Looks like they've been pretty severely trounced already, mostly by that first poster who gave all sorts of links & citations to FACTS. (They won't bother to read any of them, of course.)

    "say no to giving licenses to kill to violent people"
    Isn't that what the background check is supposed to do?
    But wait, it doesn't work on criminals, 'cause they usually don't buy from a dealer.
    And it didn't work on the Tucson ( )o( ) [a-ho|e] even though he did buy from a dealer, because he didn't admit his illegal use of drugs, & hadn't been adjudicated mentally incompetent.

    "waiting for opportunities to unleash their firepower on strangers, public servants, and loved ones"
    Is that what I'm supposed to do? I never knew.

    "concealed carry gun-toting people"
    So they'd be OK with a national open carry reciprocity act then?
    We can do that.

    "studies repeatedly have shown that laws making it easy to carry concealed guns do not reduce crime"
    Huh? What studies? They give one quote by an economist, not references to an actual peer-reviewed study.

    "license holders have received permits to carry without proper background checks or training"
    I know of no state that issues a LTCF (or whatever it's called where you are) without a background check.
    And the states which don't require training don't have higher rates of problems than states which require extensive training.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  14. #14
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Thank you for the Good Work!

    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Looks like they've been pretty severely trounced already, mostly by that first poster who gave all sorts of links & citations to FACTS. (They won't bother to read any of them, of course.)

    "say no to giving licenses to kill to violent people"
    Isn't that what the background check is supposed to do?
    But wait, it doesn't work on criminals, 'cause they usually don't buy from a dealer.
    And it didn't work on the Tucson ( )o( ) [a-ho|e] even though he did buy from a dealer, because he didn't admit his illegal use of drugs, & hadn't been adjudicated mentally incompetent.

    "waiting for opportunities to unleash their firepower on strangers, public servants, and loved ones"
    Is that what I'm supposed to do? I never knew.

    "concealed carry gun-toting people"
    So they'd be OK with a national open carry reciprocity act then?
    We can do that.

    "studies repeatedly have shown that laws making it easy to carry concealed guns do not reduce crime"
    Huh? What studies? They give one quote by an economist, not references to an actual peer-reviewed study.

    "license holders have received permits to carry without proper background checks or training"
    I know of no state that issues a LTCF (or whatever it's called where you are) without a background check.
    And the states which don't require training don't have higher rates of problems than states which require extensive training.
    You are doing a great job. I much appreciate it. Hat tip to the lady!

  15. #15
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Wyler-David View Post
    unfortunately Arizona does not require a license to lawfully conceal a firearm.
    Unfortunately???
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    This article was apparently written by the Brady Campaign. I read it and was so enraged that I just had to post a rebuttal. I don't like to accuse real human beings who have feelings and a conscience of waging a deliberate misinformation campaign, but sadly it was necessary to do so.
    With those folks it's not "deliberate." They really believe convincing everyone to forfeit their rights under the Constitution, commensurate with our Declaration, is in everyone's best interests.

    Some excerpts:

    "'We urge the American people to say no to giving licenses to kill to violent people, who are waiting for opportunities to unleash their firepower on strangers, public servants, and loved ones alike,' said Dennis Henigan, Acting President of the Brady Campaign."
    Interestly, I agree with this, in theory. In reality any and all such regulations only have an affect on honest, law-abiding citizens. These regs have little effect on either criminals or the criminally insane.

    Good letter! Here's my favorite highlight:

    Given the actual facts, the very best that the Brady Campaign could possibly argue is that since Jared Lee Loughner could have gotten a license (even though he didn't), it follows that law-abiding citizens should not be able to get a license. In other words, the Brady Campaign is promoting victim disarmament as a crime-fighting strategy.
    The Brady Campaign is promoting nothing short of the complete disarmament of the United States of America. They're still in their "baby steps." With any luck, their shoes will rot off baby's feet before they gain one inch further ground.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

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