"Assault clips...they make everyone a target." <----Ridiculous

Here's a link to the Brady's latest scare campaign video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Va-Ll2vKw

You just have to love the scary, evil music that they have playing in the background. Add the strange guy shooting with the menacing, 'I'm a serial killer' look on his face, and you have an instant scare campaign.

Please note that they disabled comments and ratings for the video. Gee, I wonder why...

I'm a graphic designer with over 20 years experience.

Somewhere, there is a member of my profession who was paid to design and print that target of the little girl and the other "people" targets--all in VERY bad taste.

Whoever designed these targets is an embarrassment to the profession. I hope I never find out who it was, because if I ever do, I will do everything in my power to "out" him as perhaps the most unethical, whorish, and morally deficient graphic designer of the 21st century.

It's crap like this that gives people the impression that graphic designers are little more than cheap prostitutes who will offer their services to anyone with a little money.

I apologize on behalf of the entire profession of Graphic Design, and I want to assure this forum that the VAST majority of Designers are not amoral, unethical, sociopathic whores like the person who did the graphics for this ad....

Dreamer said:

I'm a graphic designer with over 20 years experience.

Somewhere, there is a member of my profession who was paid to design and print that target of the little girl and the other "people" targets--all in VERY bad taste.

Whoever designed these targets is an embarrassment to the profession. I hope I never find out who it was, because if I ever do, I will do everything in my power to "out" him as perhaps the most unethical, whorish, and morally deficient graphic designer of the 21st century.

It's crap like this that gives people the impression that graphic designers are little more than cheap prostitutes who will offer their services to anyone with a little money.

I apologize on behalf of the entire profession of Graphic Design, and I want to assure this forum that the VAST majority of Designers are not amoral, unethical, sociopathic whores like the person who did the graphics for this ad....

Click to expand...

It only takes one to ruin it all..... I had no idea the group was close knit like that though! That's interesting to learn.

That Ad

Is a miserable attempt by the "Brady Bunch" to make it seem like all legal gun owners that have high capacity magazines are insane wannabe mass murderers. When we all know nothing could be further from the truth. They try to say that all we want to do is kill children. I in fact have Hi-cap mags BECAUSE of the possibility I may encounter multiple threats. My duty weapon has a 15 round magazine. Gives me little comfort that it is 9mm, but at least I carry 30 friends with it.

One of these days someone is going to testify in some official capacity in front of some government entity holding up a few clips, clearly showing that no clip holds more than 10 rounds. I would laugh hysterically if I was in the audience.

KansasMustang said:

Is a miserable attempt by the "Brady Bunch" to make it seem like all legal gun owners that have high capacity magazines are insane wannabe mass murderers. When we all know nothing could be further from the truth. They try to say that all we want to do is kill children. I in fact have Hi-cap mags BECAUSE of the possibility I may encounter multiple threats. My duty weapon has a 15 round magazine. Gives me little comfort that it is a 9mm, but at least I carry 30 friends with it.

Click to expand...

Might be time to move on up . Seriously though, the one thing that I've learned over the years is that it is impossible to try and use logic when dealing with people who use emotion as the basis for their "conclusions". With liberals one of their core beliefs is that there is no good or bad, right or wrong, only gray. Therefore it is easier to blame the inanimate object than to admit that there are bad and crazy people in our society. Now some people may not be raging antis to start out with but most get their info from groups like Brady and the media who also believe the unwashed masses should not be allowed to own guns and since that is all they see and hear then it must be true . A person is smart, people are dumb.

Only about half the violent crimes in the US which involve 'weapons' is by HG. (see wiki).

About three times the number of deaths are caused by automobiles.

Judges and juries still let people off with no 'time' or community service and maybe a year with license suspended for a txting or cellphoning motorist who kills a bicyclist, (especially if they're female and pretty). "He came out of nowhere' is considered a defense against homicide.

Killing someone with a car is deemed 'different' and called 'vehicular homicide'. In fact 'second degree vehicular homicide' is a Misdemeanor.

People drive drunk and get many, many citations (an individual in Illinois got a whopping 22 DUI convictions!). If one runs a cyclist off the road the police rarely even investigate even if you have a license plate number.

Gotta ask yourself why people just carrying HG are treated so differently. There's literally no restrictions on driving. Why aren't people calling for speed restrictions on cars, or rubber bumpers with cow-catchers (lol)?

/rant

Badger Johnson said:

Only about half the violent crimes in the US which involve 'weapons' is by HG. (see wiki).

About three times the number of deaths are caused by automobiles.

Judges and juries still let people off with no 'time' or community service and maybe a year with license suspended for a txting or cellphoning motorist who kills a bicyclist, (especially if they're female and pretty). "He came out of nowhere' is considered a defense against homicide.

Killing someone with a car is deemed 'different' and called 'vehicular homicide'. In fact 'second degree vehicular homicide' is a Misdemeanor.

People drive drunk and get many, many citations (an individual in Illinois got a whopping 22 DUI convictions!). If one runs a cyclist off the road the police rarely even investigate even if you have a license plate number.

Gotta ask yourself why people just carrying HG are treated so differently. There's literally no restrictions on driving. Why aren't people calling for speed restrictions on cars, or rubber bumpers with cow-catchers (lol)?

/rant

Click to expand...

Cars aren't even designed to kill anyone, and designers go as far as technology allows to ensure as little injury as possible in the event of an accident. Still, the moonbats only want to regulate those that they think are too big.

That said if I were on a jury, I'd likely let someone off for hitting a bicyclist. The roads are meant for cars, not recreational Lance Armstrong wanna-bes and hippy oxygen thieves who "think" they're saving the planet. These idiots are a danger to everyone else on the road. If they want bike trails and routes they can pay an extra licensing tax for their construction, but they need to keep their dumba$$es the hell out of traffic.

PrayingForWar said:

Cars aren't even designed to kill anyone, and designers go as far as technology allows to ensure as little injury as possible in the event of an accident. Still, the moonbats only want to regulate those that they think are too big.

That said if I were on a jury, I'd likely let someone off for hitting a bicyclist. The roads are meant for cars, not recreational Lance Armstrong wanna-bes and hippy oxygen thieves who "think" they're saving the planet. These idiots are a danger to everyone else on the road. If they want bike trails and routes they can pay an extra licensing tax for their construction, but they need to keep their dumba$$es the hell out of traffic.

Click to expand...

Carefully consider what you said; you seem to be of the opinion that murdering innocent people is completely okay, as long as they are doing things you dislike.

TrailRunner said:

Carefully consider what you said; you seem to be of the opinion that murdering innocent people is completely okay, as long as they are doing things you dislike.

Click to expand...

Not quite. I'm saying I can excuse people for accidentally killing some moron, who's doing something stupid anyway. Just like I can easily exonerate someone who intentionally kills some sociopath who attempted to victimize the person who killed them. People do lots of stupid things, and die all the time. I don't care. I damn sure wouldn't bring back judgement against someone who's minding their own business only to have their lives interrupted for accidentally killing an idiot in the commission of an action that can be avoided. The same can be said if I was on the jury of the case where an old lady squezzed a cup of hot coffee between her legs leaving a McDonalds drive through. She would have left court empty handed if I had the final word on that.

In Austin TX it's almost impossible to drive in some places because of all the Lance Armstrong wannabe dip$#!ts, and ignorant hippies riding in traffic. The roads are designed for vehicular traffic, to allow people WITH JOBS AND COMMERCIAL INTERESTS to more efficiently travel and conduct their lives. Idiots on bicycles not only endanger themselves, and put others at risk by creating obstacles. They impede traffic and commerce. I'm ok with people who can't afford a car to ride a bike to work LIKE I DID when I was a kid. But I stayed the hell off busy roads as much as possible, and definately stayed the hell out of traffic.

However all the Lance wannabes, hippie douchebags, and environazis have demanded laws protecting IDIOCY, and seem to have priority on the roads. This is maddening, and I wouldn't convict a driver unless they stood up in court and confessed to running them over on purpose. Otherwise I'm not going to protect the stupid, when there's a plausible chance a driver just didn't see the stinking little stoner who might not have bothered to look before crossing 2 lanes of traffic while listening to Marley on his headphones so he can make a left turn into the park and try out his new bong.

People do all sorts of things I dislike, ALL THE TIME. Being a conservative however, I do not demand laws against their behavior. I do certainly detest laws that protect it. For instance, if you want to smoke crack until your heart explodes, have at it. If you want to throw bags of dog crap at soldiers until they shoot you, have at it. If you want to protest and demand the government bankrupts itself to pay your salary, insurance and pension, have at it. If you want to want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, have at it. Drive without a seatbelt, try to beat that train at the crossing, bungee jump off buildings with extra cord, use fireworks carelessly, or try to shoot beer cans off each other's heads with a .25 automatic colt, HAVE AT IT. Just don't expect me to convict anyone involved just because they didn't die trying to stop you. Hell, I wouldn't even care if they egged you on.

@PrayingForWar

Y'know, many of those cyclists are also commuting to work and being productive and engaging in commerce. And I don't know about where you live, but where I live it is illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk. In a lot of cases that means their only choice is to bike on the road. Which is why we also have bike lanes on most of our roads.

On the flip side, driving is an activity that requires a high level of attention, I think its far more reasonable to expect someone to stay off their phone and actually pay attention to their driving. Anyone not doing so is the real threat, not people riding bicycles.

A little perspective goes a long way.

RooksGambit said:

@PrayingForWar

Y'know, many of those cyclists are also commuting to work and being productive and engaging in commerce. I SAID: "I'm ok with people who can't afford a car to ride a bike to work LIKE I DID when I was a kid. But I stayed the hell off busy roads as much as possible, and definately stayed the hell out of traffic." And I don't know about where you live, but where I live it is illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk. In a lot of cases that means their only choice is to bike on the road. Which is why we also have bike lanes on most of our roads. My concern is not people riding in bike lanes, that's what they're there for. There's a pretty obvious difference between people commuting to work, and people playing Lance Armstrong. Then you have the mindless leftist rejects who think they're saving the planet by riding bikes and demanding laws that give bicycle riders priority. They need to take their dumbasses to North Korea and enjoy being forced to ride one, provided the benevolent providers in that "utopia" issue them one.

On the flip side, driving is an activity that requires a high level of attention, I think its far more reasonable to expect someone to stay off their phone and actually pay attention to their driving. Its already against the law in some places to drive on the phone. Cell phone drivers irritate the hell out of me, but I do not like LAWS against it, since they inhibit communication which can be very important. Driving distracted is one of those "stupid things" I don't like people doing. When they injure others while in commision of an act of stupidity, it's up to a judge to deal with it. Anyone not doing so is the real threat, not people riding bicycles. It's far more "reasonable" to expect someone who's taking a calculated risk by putting themselves into an extrememly vulnerable position; riding a slow moving 8 LBS vehicle amongst fast moving 2000LBS + vehicles to use as much caution as possible, than to enact laws which restrict the mobility of the greater majority of people who're actually paying all the taxes that maintain the roads that were designed for the vehicles they purchased.

A little perspective goes a long way.

Click to expand...

A little critical thinking as well as reading comprehension skills trump "perspective" by a long shot. You can have all the "perspective" you want, if it's the wrong perspective it only serves to exaserbate and create other problems.

Badger Johnson said:

Only about half the violent crimes in the US which involve 'weapons' is by HG. (see wiki).

About three times the number of deaths are caused by automobiles.

Click to expand...

Comparing crime rates (which are intentionally caused) with automobile accidents (which are unintentional) is comparing apples and rutebegas. For an accurate comparison, one needs to compare accidental deaths due to guns to accidental deaths due to cars, then adjust the results by the relative numbers from each group.

As there are roughly the same number of automobiles as handguns here in the U.S. the raw numbers are comparable, and those are 43,000 accidental deaths annually for autos, and 1,500 accidental deaths annually for firearms.

Thus, the ratio is roughly 28 to 1, not three to one.

Judges and juries still let people off with no 'time' or community service and maybe a year with license suspended for a txting or cellphoning motorist who kills a bicyclist, (especially if they're female and pretty). "He came out of nowhere' is considered a defense against homicide.

Click to expand...

That would be negligent homicide.

Killing someone with a car is deemed 'different' and called 'vehicular homicide'. In fact 'second degree vehicular homicide' is a Misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

Accidental deaths due to handguns are treated largely the same as accidental deaths due to vehicles. Furthermore, the degree of negligence is strongly considered in both situations. An father who gives a loaded weapon to a five-year-old will receive a much harsher sentence if the child accidently shoots the mother than if the father was using a safe and the child found the key or observed and re-entered the combination.

People drive drunk and get many, many citations (an individual in Illinois got a whopping 22 DUI convictions!).

Click to expand...

In and of itself, a DUI has not actually done harm to another. It's only engaging in reckless/irresponsible behavior which has significantly increased the potential to cause harm to other as compared to driving sober. DUIs involving injury or death to others are generally met with far greater consequences i.e. some serious jail time than DUIs where no one was hurt.

If one runs a cyclist off the road the police rarely even investigate even if you have a license plate number.

Click to expand...

I've been on the receiving end of that... I was to busy tumbling in the ditch to grab a license number, though.

Gotta ask yourself why people just carrying HG are treated so differently.

Click to expand...

I don't see that they are, at least not when you compare apples to apples. Your premise, comparing "DUIs" to "handgun deaths" are both too broad and too poorly defined for meaningful comparison.

There's literally no restrictions on driving.

Click to expand...

Really? Have you read your state's drivers' handbook lately? It's chock full of restrictions.

Why aren't people calling for speed restrictions on cars...

Click to expand...

Do you mean electronic limiters, as in something that senses what the speed should be on that section of road and will not allow the vehicle to go faster? If that's the case, people would floor it all the time! Whenever they encountered a stretch of road not governed by a limiter, they could find themselves out of control.

...or rubber bumpers with cow-catchers (lol)?

Click to expand...

All bumpers made over the last few decades absorb energy.

PrayingForWar said:

A little critical thinking as well as reading comprehension skills trump "perspective" by a long shot. You can have all the "perspective" you want, if it's the wrong perspective it only serves to exaserbate and create other problems.

Click to expand...

Allow me to engage in some of this critical thinking; Anyone who works and has taxes taken out of their income is paying for the roads, I might point out. Not just motorists. So, really, they've just as much right to use the roads as anyone. Particularly when engaging in a legal activity. I agree about silly laws, though. There are already consequences for reckless and dangerous driving, no need to spell out the various specific circumstances where these actions might occur within the law. Ah, Commie leftist bicyclists. So it's wrong for anyone to ride a bike for health or enjoyment unless they're a damn dirty commie? Or Lance Armstrong?

Kind of un-American to deny someone a liberty based on their political, environmental or, really, any predilection that isn't related to illegal activity.

deleted

Hey, Sarah! I got yer "Assault Clip" hanging right here!



Just picked this baby up from my FFL, last Friday.

Since it's actually a semi-auto handgun, not an SMG, I'm wondering if I should OC it, next Lobby Day };-D>

RooksGambit said:

Allow me to engage in some of this critical thinking;

OK, I'll wait, just try not to to take too long.

Anyone who works and has taxes taken out of their income is paying for the roads, I might point out. Not just motorists.

Most of the money used for road maintenance as far as I'm aware are derived from fuel taxes, and most taxpayers drive cars on the road. This means bicyclists pay an insignificant fraction of any money used for infrastructure upkeep.

So, really, they've just as much right to use the roads as anyone. Particularly when engaging in a legal activity.

I didn't say they don't, I just think they should stay the hell out of people's way.

I agree about silly laws, though. There are already consequences for reckless and dangerous driving, no need to spell out the various specific circumstances where these actions might occur within the law. Ah, Commie leftist bicyclists. So it's wrong for anyone to ride a bike for health or enjoyment unless they're a damn dirty commie? Or Lance Armstrong?

There's the reading comprehension failure I was addressing. NOTHING was said about there being anything wrong with bicycling, for any purpose, even if you're just going to a park to smoke dope. IMO, it's STUPID to do so in traffic. It's ignorant to inhibit other commuters on infrastructure designed for the vehicle they're driving for any reason, if there is an alternative route, and in most cases there likely is. I know of no city in the US that does not have parks, suburban areas, side streets, nature preserves or whatever have you, that would make far safer places to do whatever it is you need or want to do than a road full of cars driving at 40+ MPH. Bike riders do not deserve special protection.

Kind of un-American to deny someone a liberty based on their political, environmental or, really, any predilection that isn't related to illegal activity.

Click to expand...

It's certainly "unamerican" to demand special treatment under the law that inhibits the free movement of everyone else for an activity that is usually not even neccessary. It's downright stupid and manipulative to suggest not giving said persons special rights is equal to denying them rights. I said NOTHING about denying their rights. I did say I would not convict anyone for killing someone who was doing something I THINK IS STUPID, unless he actually admits he commited murder. If there is plausible doubt, I vote he walks, and gets paid for the damage to his truck.