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

Brady Campaign Battles Against Concealed Carry Bill

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/brady-campaign-battles-against-concealed-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!

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.

Andrew Wyler-David said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

OC4me said:

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!

Click to expand...

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!

Andrew Wyler-David said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Andrew Wyler-David said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

The link is not currently working. I guess a few feathers got ruffled by your response. :lol:

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.

Polynikes said:

The link is not currently working. I guess a few feathers got ruffled by your response. :lol:

Click to expand...

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.

It's back up and there's another ripping them to pieces! :lol::lol:

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.

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

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.

Thank you for the Good Work!

MKEgal said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are doing a great job. I much appreciate it. Hat tip to the lady!

Andrew Wyler-David said:

unfortunately Arizona does not require a license to lawfully conceal a firearm.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately???

OC4me said:

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.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.