Memorial Day: Remembering All Who Protect And Serve

Read more about Memorial Day from Huffington Post bloggers.

If you have yet to visit the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, I encourage you make it part of your plans on your next trip to Washington, D.C.

Dedicated by President George H.W. Bush in October 1991, this memorial provides an experience as solemn and moving as visiting any of the other, better-known monuments here in the nation's capital.

Having been responsible for the police department of Indiana's second-largest city during my 12 years as mayor of Fort Wayne, I was particularly moved by seeing the names of over 14,000 police officers killed in the line of duty - officers who took it upon themselves to protect and serve communities all across America. A few of these names from my hometown were well-known by me personally.

On Thursday, May 15, I had the honor of laying a wreath at the Memorial during National Police Week in my capacity as President of the Brady Campaign.

I laid the wreath by the name of Senior Corporal Mark Nix. Corporal Nix served the people of Dallas, Texas as a police officer for seven years, until someone shot and killed him with a military-style semiautomatic assault weapon. (You can read more about his tragic murder here.)

Corporal Nix was engaged to be married, was a brother and a son, and was a veteran of Operation Desert Storm where he served with distinction in the U.S. Navy.

Now, his name is engraved on the Memorial Wall with 14,000 of his brothers and sisters in uniform who gave their lives to protect ours.

This Memorial Day weekend, as we remember our men and women in uniform serving around the world in our armed services, I encourage you also to remember those who serve in our local law enforcement agencies.

They put their lives on the line every day, and every day they have to deal with a criminal element armed with weapons of ever-greater firepower.

We can do something about the challenges faced by our local men and women in uniform. We can adopt policies to make it harder for dangerous people to get their hands on dangerous weapons - doing things like requiring background checks for all gun sales, and restricting easy access to military-style weaponry.

Our law enforcement representatives work hard every day to protect us in America. We should do more to protect them.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Read more about Memorial Day from Huffington Post bloggers.

Comments

[muffinman2]

Nice headline Paul. You left out the part about the police not being legally responsible to "protect" anyone. It's not their job, according to SCOTUS.

So who's job is it? Macca, Dances Inc., Jade, Doug; Anyone?

[muffinman2]

Macca said:

"Pay me? Who do you think pays me? Does someone pay you for stopping by here and making comments."

You're not going to try telling us you don't work for the BC again, are you? That cat was out of the bag a long time ago.

[MMimi]

Believe what you will. I have no idea what you are talking about.

[muffinman2]

Doug,

MMimi (Macca) said:

"for 2 years, what does that say about you? you have nothing better to do over a 2 year time period but sit at you computer and make comments. seek help before it's too late for you."

See Doug, this is what we mean. This person and her cohorts are just not capable of posting a comment that does not contain an ad hominem/personal attack.

What does that say about you Macca?And what does it say about Kelli's inability to back up her assertions? It's time the lot of you grew up.

As a matter of fact, kaveman obviously has lots of better thing to do. He only posts from work. His weekends are occupied with "better things".

Although, now that I think about it , I'm sure you would prefer that we don't spend any time here.

[MMimi]

Sounds your feelings are hurt? Poor thing

[djkrlsn]

Marsha--is there a reason why you are doing a truly impressive imitation of a 7 or 8 year old kid teasing another--if the facts or on your side, please supply them. Snerty ad hominems are useless as a debating tool.

[muffinman2]

You people are not capable of hurting my feelings. I can't believe those people pay you. They are getting ripped off, if that's all you've got.

"Debate? There is no debate here. You're kidding yourself if you think there is or could
be."

Yes, it is a debate. The fact that you keep losing miserably does not make it otherwise. The fact that you will never bring us over to your side, because the facts won't allow it, does not make it otherwise. The fact that you people can't come up with anything but ad-hominem, while pathetic, does not mean it is not a debate.

[Thirdpower2]

Incidents of Brady's not telling the truth:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/assaultweapons/incidents_assault_weapon_violence/

Now how many of those were actually "Assault Rifles" or "AK-47"'s in comparison to semi-autos? They wouldn't be trying to confuse the two, would they?

[muffinman2]

I see they got right into the "spraying the house with dozens of bullets" BS right off the bat. Semi-auto rifles can't spray bullets, Doug.

[benEzra]

The thing is, civilian AK's were no less legal in 1998 or 2002 than they are today. The only difference between a 2002 AK and a 2006 AK is that the 2002 AK would have had a smooth muzzle and smooth gas block, whereas the 2006 AK might have the more authentic looking slant brake on the muzzle.

I shoot recreationally and competitively with a 2002 model civilian AK (SAR-1) that I purchased in 2003:

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1168567538/gallery_260_23_20379.jpg

Here are the differences between my 2002 carbine and a pre-1994 or post-2004 civilian AK:

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1132600920/gallery_260_23_74799.jpg

Functionally, it is absolutely IDENTICAL in every way to this deer rifle:

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=5806&return=Y

Same caliber, same range of capacities, same rate of fire, same effective range, same accuracy.

[ebaLnoloM]

Doug,

The problem is that the Brady Campaign has a credibility problem. Paul Helmke likes to go on and on about Judicial Activism(tm). Allegedly, this is when the courts take it upon themselves to rule against the Will of the People(tm). Paul Helmke equated the DC 2-1 decision in favor of stricking the handgun ban as Judicial Activism(tm).

Yet, when a Mayor clearly and egregiously enacts legislation which is not only illegal, but also attempts to unsurp state preemption laws (Nutter, Philadelphia), the Brady Campaign lists it as a "local victory."

"Pennsylvania (03/12/2008): Philadelphia Rallies for Right to Pass Local Gun Laws
Members of the Philadelphia City Council were joined by Mayor Michael Nutter and state advocates and activists at a rally in the City Hall Courtyard On Wednesday. The event attracted hundreds of supporters and followed a hearing for the city's lawsuit that seeks to restore Philadelphia's right to enact their own gun laws."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/news.php

Now we have you saying that the BC is not a gun ban organization, while supporting legislation which....uh....bans handguns (DC), "assault style weapons", SNS's/junk guns, etc....

Can't have it both ways. You either support the 2A, or you don't.

[muffinman2]

Doug, back in September, Paul closed the Brady Blog to comments so they could revamp their system, or something to that effect.

So, is the BC Blog ever going to be reopened to comments?

[Wilson333]

I'm glad you're still here, Doug. It's refreshing to hear from someone on the other side who isn't calling us names.

Doug, ML makes a good point.

"While you and your organization are chasing scary black weapons and high capacity magazines, our judicial system is regurgitating career criminals onto our streets."

The idea of imposing stiffer sentences, or even keeping violent felons in jail for a sufficient length of time, is not very popular around here on the pro gun-control side. I think it only makes sense to go after the real criminals, if you really want to reduce crime.

How does the BC feel about that idea?

There is another question that has been asked of gun control supporters repeatedly on this blog, yet no answer has ever been forthcoming. What would you do, no matter how unlikely a scenario you THINK it is, to protect your family from harm, if an intruder broke into your home?

Would you be willing to answer?

[djkrlsn]

Judging from Kelli and Marsha--the Brady Campaign is opposed to keeping violent criminals locked up until they are no longer a danger.

[ebaLnoloM]

Doug-

The problem I personally have with your organization's support for the mentioned gun control legislation is that nowhere in the past has said legislation proven effecitve. One only needs to look at DC, Chicago, etc... to see that gun control doesn't work at stopping overall crime. One only needs to look at the *true* statistics to see that while you and the BC support all of these ticky-tack gun laws and waste finite time and financial resources, there are CRIMINALS out there who could give two _____'s less about gun laws. There are socio-economic and a plethora of other social factors which contribute to violent crime.

So either you and the BC ONLY care about "gun crime", or your pockets are constantly being lined with financial windfalls for your continued "efforts".

This has nothing to do with "compromise." It's about reality.

While you and your organization are chasing scary black weapons and high capacity magazines, our judicial system is regurgitating career criminals onto our streets. And that is a problem that legislating anything out of my gun cabinet won't solve. Nor is it MY personal responsibility to condede to legislation which has proven ineffective.

Nice post. But it's all fluff. Paint whatever picture you like, but your basic premise is tht gun control works and that it must be pursued. Which is a proven fallacy.

[djkrlsn]

With Chicago, DC, Los Angeles, VT and NIU all being prime examples of that.

[DougPennington]

Part 4.

3a. While restricting civilian access to assault weapons is not controversial - except maybe to 30% of the country - limiting similar access to high-capacity ammunition magazines is probably even more popular. A permanent restriction on magazines of over 10 rounds would infringe nobody's Second Amendment rights, but it would make it just a little harder to load 30 rounds of soft body armor-piercing ammunition into a semi-auto assault rifle to shoot at police with. Again - not a perfect or a complete solution by any means - but a useful one.

3b. A google news search of "ak-47" - pulling a name out of the air - gets about 2,000 hits. A lot of those are foreign stories; filter those out and look at just the the American articles to see how easily those rifles (and AK-type pistols) end up not in the hands of police, military, or specialized target shooters, but in drug users', gangsters', random teenagers'.... Society shouldn't have to pay this price for the privilege of a few civilian AK aficionados. It's not a tough call.

Sorry for the multiple parts....

Doug Pennington, Bradycampaign.org

[Thirdpower2]

3a: Define an "Assault weapon" please. Of course now you're using the usual fear-mongering that is typical.

3b: The Google hits are so large due to organizations like your referring to semi-autos as "AK-47's" and falsely comparing the two in order to intentionally confuse the issue w/ the public.

Thank you for proving the point BTW.

[ebaLnoloM]

tp-

Don't forget about those new SKS 47's.

Remember, when you can't identify what is and what isn't an "assault weapon", just make it up.

http://www.kyw1060.com/State-Rep-Says-Citizens-Need-to-Unite-to-Fight-Cri/2247259

[BlackjackDavy]

"Militay style assault weapons"

I beg your pardon sir, dont you mean 'civilian style'? "Military style assault weapons are capable of firing in full-auto mode( like a machine gun). These weapons you wish to ban are semi-automatic, requiring resighting, and pulling the trigger for each shot. But the BC knows this. This is the type of misleading terminology that is meant to deceive those who are not knowledgeable about firearms. The Brady Campaign website is full of misrepresentations like this.

"A permanent restriction on magazines of over 10 rounds would infringe nobody's Second Amendment rights, but it would make it just a little harder to load 30 rounds of soft body armor-piercing ammunition into a semi-auto assault rifle to shoot at police with. Again - not a perfect or a complete solution by any means - but a useful one."

Sir, magazine capacity restrictions are useless measures designed to make people feel better. I can change a magazine in 1.25 seconds. I'm sure there are lots of people who can do it even faster.

However, if your in a 'gun-free zone', where most mass shootings take place, it is inconsequencial, because there won't be anyone shooting back.

Some of the other commenters have presented statistics from the FBI, regarding the number of crimes involving rifles, including these so called "military style assault weapons". These weapons are rarely used in crime, because they are not consealable, as your previous president stated.

[djkrlsn]

Also do not forget that the vast majority of centerfire rifle ammo can penetrate a police vest (because vests that will stop hunting rounds will be even heavier than military vests designed to stop 5.56Nato and 7.62x39 ammo (which are both lowpowered compared to ammo designed to hunt medium and large game (especially prey like the big bears and the African big 5)).

[MorgansRifles]

Doug:

One of the problems we have here is that sertain terms aren't defined. For example, what you mean by "restricting civilian access to assault weapons"? Would the BC be satisfied if the 1994 AWB was reinstated or do you want something more restrictive?

I understand that you say you don't want to "ban" guns but when you don't define what you really mean it is hard not to be a little suspicious.

Michael

[kaveman]

Notice anything funky, Doug?

"...would infringe nobody's Second Amendment rights..."


"...privilege of a few..."


You use words like Right and privilege as if they are synonyms.

As I've stated before. The Bill of Rights is not subject to winning a popularity contest.

What if 70% of Americans polled wanted to ban Mexicans from voting?

What if 70% of Americans thought Blacks should be segragated in the school system, retaurants and public bathrooms?

What if 70% wanted a ban on gay marriage?

Are any of these OK with you?

[djkrlsn]

Doug-in terms of "armour piercing ammunition", just about every round that is a proven hunting round will penetrate a police vest designed to stop handgun ammo. I have rifles in 303 Brit, 7.62x63 (30-06), 7.62x39, 30/30, 223 remington and 44mag (plus 3 revolvers in the same caliber) and a revolver in 454Casull that all will penetrate either some or all police vests. Both my bolt action rifles are equipped to handle stripper clips (1 in 303 and the other in 30/06), so I can maintain a very high rate of fire out of either of those rifles (look up SMLE and "mad minute") to document what I just said.

[DougPennington]

Part 3.

2. Background checks on all gun sales isn't a big deal, and it's not the first step to wholesale confiscation by ATF "jack booted thugs" or the UN black helicopters. Licensed dealers do it, and and so can everyone else who wants to sell a gun. Find a licensed dealer, pay a small fee to run the check, make sure the paperwork is filled out correctly and filed, and make sure the check comes back approved. Selling a gun is a heavy responsibility. Law-abiding gun sellers don't fear running criminal background checks; in fact, they have the most to gain from improving the honor system in place now. This video from last year should be enough for anyone to see how big the loophole really is - at gun shows and elsewhere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq2faC-u87g

[Thirdpower2]

2: It is when you're trying to shut down the same dealers that you want everyone to go through. Go ahead Doug, bring up the 1% cite again. Please.

[djkrlsn]

If the background checks are no big deal--why not allow nonFFL's to run them (I see no difficutly in giving a simple yes/no on eligibility). Also why is the Brady Campaign trying to reintroduce waiting periods--other than to harassing the lawabiding?

[MorgansRifles]

Doug:

If it is no big deal, then why don't you support private access to the NICS? Is there some reason that you want all background checks to go through an FFL?

Michael

[SnowflakesInHell]

The problem, Doug, is it's not a small fee in many cases. My local FFL charges 34 bucks to do a transfer. Other local FFLs are charging 40 and 50 dollars. If I want to pay a smaller fee, I can drive all the way to Doylestown, the county seat, and have the Sheriff process the background check and paperwork, but then I'm blowing 10 bucks in gas.

Pennsylvania entirely bans private sales of handguns, and it hasn't done squat to stop criminals in Philadelphia from obtaining firearms. Now you guys push for one gun per months restrictions in my state. What happens when that doesn't work? One gun a year? Just one gun?

That's why we resist these measures. Because they a) won't work, and b) will never be enough. Anyone who believes ending private transfers will fight crime, look at Philadelphia.

[DougPennington]

Part 2.

1a. Brady does not advocate banning guns. Quoting Pete Shields 30 years ago doesn't change that. If what organizations were is what organizations are, then - if we were to take JPFO at their word - NRA is a closet gun control organization because they "signed off" on the gun Control Act of 1968: http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-friends-like-nra.htm. Brady supports the District in the DC gun case because we want to influence the Court's opinion, not because we like DC's handgun ban as policy. Our brief shows this, in that it says zero about defending the policy itself. (We were also joined by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, the National Black Police Association, the National Latino Peace Officers Association, the School Safety Advocacy Council, and the Police Executive Research Forum. National FOP did not join a brief on either side.)

1b. Universal background checks, limits on bulk purchases of handguns, strict gun dealer regulations and enforcement of those regulations by a strong ATF, and restrictions on military-style assault weapons. That's what we're about today, and have been about for a very long time, in the belief that the 2 Am doesn't get in the way of any of these.

[Thirdpower2]

1a: Except for Handguns (don't split hairs Doug), "Assault Weapons", "Saturday Night Specials", .50 Cals, etc.

1b: So you would support allowing NICS access to Non-FFL holders or are you going to maintain your policy of forcing them through FFL holders that you are, at the same time, advocating lawsuits against using inaccurate data?

[muffinman2]

"1b. Universal background checks, limits on bulk purchases of handguns, strict gun dealer regulations and enforcement of those regulations by a strong ATF, and restrictions on military-style assault weapons. That's what we're about today, and have been about for a very long time, in the belief that the 2 Am doesn't get in the way of any of these."

Would these same "strict gun dealer regulations....and enforcement by a strong ATF" apply to Josh Sugarmann of your strong allies, the VPC? He has managed to have a Federal Fire License for a number of years, despite the fact that he qualifies for none of the different classes of FFL. He also owns a number of "military-style assault weapons." What does that mean, anyway Doug; they are scary looking, like real assault rifles?

"Brady supports the District in the DC gun case because we want to influence the Court's opinion, not because we like DC's handgun ban as policy."

Doug, that's a different way of wording the same nonsense we heard from the BC before. It makes absolutely no sense. Why would you want to influence the Court's opinion, if you don't support the ban? Could it be because you still don't believe that 2A guarantees an 'indidvidual right', despite what 75% of the American people believe, and what the Supreme Court believes?

I'm sorry Doug, but it looks like you put a lot of effort into repeating the same old lines.

[fishyjay]

DougPennington: "Brady does not advocate banning guns."

Do you mean "all" guns? Hardly anyplace bans "all" guns. There is legitimate concern about groups that would ban SOME guns and not set limits on further bans.

"Brady does not advocate banning guns."

How about "assault weapons"? 50 cal. rifles? "Junk guns"/"Saturday night specials"?

[fishyjay]

DougPennington: "If we were to take JPFO at their word - NRA is a closet gun control organization because they "signed off" on the gun Control Act of 1968"

Not relevant -- JPFO is a DIFFERENT group that is often at odds with the NRA. Pete Shields wrote on behalf of the SAME group as the Brady Campaign.

DougPennington: "Quoting Pete Shields 30 years ago doesn't change that."

Pete Shields did NOT write about banning guns. He wrote about not seeking further regulation of rifles and shotguns -- an assertion which the Brady Campaign has violated often ever since. Why is it unlikely that a future Brady Campaign official, arguing for new ban proposals on some more guns, will say: "Quoting what Doug Pennington said years ago does't mean anything NOW"?

[djkrlsn]

Doug--in terms of the BC not advocating gun bans--I am sorry your actions speak far louder than your words. I look at what laws BC supports and opposes, at how they argue for their side--I am sorry, the BC may be discrete about its ultimate goal--but it is still obvious.

[DougPennington]

Part 1.

Hey folks. This may be a bit late, but I saw some people were annoyed I didn't answer comments over the weekend. (Won't be the last time that happens.) It is anything but personal or dismissive. Commenting about guns on the blogs just wasn't at the top of my list over most of the holiday. Kicking with family, and making it to the Law Enforcement Memorial were, though, and was able to do both.

One thing: I've read comments off and on over the months on the blog, and one reason I (and I suspect others) choose not to get between the warring sides here is that nobody listens to anybody. Commenters here seem to be good at the schoolyard taunts and calling each other "liars," etc, though. A few do seem to have arguments at the ready and numbers to go along with them - on both sides. (If I can make it through the drek, I can actually learn things.) Almost nobody, though, shows a sense that they may not actually have all the answers. Get in the middle of a bunch of know-it-alls convinced of their correctness? Disagree and be called a liar? Spend hours going tit-for-tat in a pointless spiral? Uh, no thanks....

Some have come up multiple times before, though, so I would say the following:

[muffinman2]

"Disagree and be called a liar?"

No Doug.

LIE, and be called a liar. Perhaps you didn't notice, but when WE call someone a liar, we back it up with documentation.

"Get in the middle of a bunch of know-it-alls convinced of their correctness?"

If getting between opposite sides in a debate offends your delicate sensibilities, I suggest you are in the wrong business.

"Commenters here seem to be good at the schoolyard taunts and calling each other "liars," etc, though."

Perhaps it also escaped your notice, that the anti-rights side started the ad-hominem a loooong time ago. They are still incapable of commenting without it, even those in the employ of the BC.

[djkrlsn]

Doug--please examine Jadegold's posts with an unbiased eye--you will see where many of the fabrications are coming from (your nominal allies). My compliments for someone at BC recognizing that Drurylane and Mmimi (for proudly proclaiming she is an elitist and that the "peasants" should not be allowed to vote for the POTUS) are damaging your arguments and encouraging them to post very little.

[MorgansRifles]

Doug:

First, maybe you don't realize it, but it looks like part of your post didn't show up. I hope that it is still to come.

As far as posting here, I am not sure how long you have been with the Brady Campaign but you say you have been reading for here for "months". As you might imagine, there is a lot more history (back to 2006) here and it goes back to when Paul still allowed us to comment on the BC blog. Many of the posters you see here (myself, kaveman, Zen, Melody, kelli, and many others) were regulars over there. To get a better sense of what is happening here, you might want to go back and read some of those old blogs.

You are correct...there is a lot of good information here but there is some name-calling on both sides. As far as almost nobody showing a sense that they don't have all the answers, I know that I have said more than once that I don't have all of them. But when documented cases of armed self-defense are ignored by someone who once said all options were on the table, it is hard to take him seriously.

I hope you continue to post here.

Michael

[MMimi]

doug, doubt there would be much point in going back and reading old comments by this group. it seems they say the same thing over and over so maybe you could just re-read stuff here. in your spare time of course (forget the family or doing anything meaningful, just read these all important comments)

[kaveman]

Thankyou for responding Doug.

Many of us here enjoyed lively debate with Zach before you replaced him at the Brady Campaign. We dissagreed more often than not, but we were civil. We're in agreement that Paul's blog has devolved somewhat since he decided to shut off comments at your own website.

Names have been called by both sides, yes. But if you claim that you've been reading on/off for months, I think your smart enough to know where the vitriol is orginating.

Between Jade's insults and Kelli's assertions that we are

1. Posting from prison.
2. Uncaring about crime/violence.
3. Evil for believing that the Jews in the Warsaw Getto uprising were heros.

Kelli actually stated that since Hitler was democratically elected, the people had no right to resist him. Just shut up and get in the cattle car.

I hope that you will reconsider and join the debate. Paul's choice of sending Kelli here and Jade's fascination with ad hominen attacks really does damage to the Brady Campaign's stated goal of building grass roots support.

We all want to live in safer world, but my safety is my responsibility. Not yours, not the government, not the police.

Mine.

[kaveman]

Keep in mind Doug...

I have for darn near 2 years now, offered Kelli the chance to watch me cut one of my handguns in half with a blow torch if she could back up her assertions with a shread of evidence.

She has never been able to do that.

So, does Kelli not want to get exactly one handgun "off the streets?"

Or is she lying?

Paul's choice to send her here to defend him is very telling about his character. Actually it fits perfectly with Paul's mind set. He doesn't believe in self defense. Defending Paul is someione else's problem, isn't it?

[MMimi]

for 2 years, what does that say about you? you have nothing better to do over a 2 year time period but sit at you computer and make comments. seek help before it's too late for you.

[djkrlsn]

Kelli (Drurylane) for someone claiming to have an iron jaw (which in actuality turned out to be as tough and durable as the film on the outside of a soapbubble) and who claims to want to protect the right of the gunbanners to speak despite all opposition--you are being awfully quiet

[djkrlsn]

Stoner--I have finally found out the basis of the "blacklist":1, from what I have found Warren Cassidy left any leadership role he had about 15 years ago; 2. just like the VPC and BC have lists of their opposition, so does the NRA;3. the"NRA Blacklist" is actually posted by either the BC or an ally and there is so much "pride" related to being on that list that they have a place to sign up. Maybe one of these days stoner will show some intelligence and try being truthful

[Thirdpower2]

What the BC doesn't like is a list of organizations and people w/ policies/opinions that people can write to and boycott. Unless they make the list of course.

[djkrlsn]

True--but I did have to establish for newbies that don't know stoner that the stoned one would not recognize the truth if it not only bit his a$$ but removed his cods

[Jadegold]

Again, the facts are evident:

The NRA considers itself a religion.

The NRA blacklists quite a number of religions and religious organizations.

The VPC and BC does neither.

[Thirdpower2]

The facts are evident. Jade's gone off his medication.

[djkrlsn]

Again, the facts are evident.

Stoner is hallucinating, dispensing lies and ad hominem attacks failing to document any of his fabrications in pursuit of his holy grail of supporting the Brady Campaign and VPC in their unconstitutional pursuit of complete civilian disarmament and libelling every activist supporting freedom the right to self protection and preservation regardless of political affiliation.

[vespasian1]

"Again, the facts are evident:"

That should be taken as a warning that what follows is anything but a fact.

"The NRA considers itself a religion."

Jade, do you really think there are people out there who are dumb enough to believe that?

The NRA has a list of anti-rights entities for pro-rights people to boycott and write letters to. So what? It's called 'activism'. Anti-2nd Amendment people don't write letters?

"The VPC and BC does neither."

No, they just lie, confuse, misrepresent, mislead, and generally hoodwink people in order to perpetuate their own existance. Neither organization is fit to be held up as an example of straightforwardness.

[ebaLnoloM]

"The VPC and BC does neither."

No, the Brady Bunch just dedicates whole web sites to smearing the NRA with their lies and fallacies http://stopthenra.com/ while not even having enough stones to keep the link up on their own site. They removed the stop the NRA link when they "collaborated" with the NRA on the NICS Improvement legislation, but still support it. How classy.

Speaking of classy, the BC never passes up the opportunity to employ the Click Here to Donate now!(tm) strategy. I wonder how much revenue that NRA Blacklist Ball created for the Brady Bunch?

http://www.nrablacklist.com/dcball/

[kaveman]

Jadegold writes...

"Again, the facts are evident:

The NRA considers itself a religion."

Since you believe that this is a fact, you shouldn't have any trouble citing some evidence.

[ebaLnoloM]

“Anyway, read the whole thing. The interesting facts are that if you're a law-abiding citizen who isn't involved with a gang, drugs, domestic violence, etc. --your chances of becoming a homicide statistic are pretty small.” -jadegold

But when you advocate the implementation of programs which target the demographics which have high instances of the above social ills which jadegold highlights, and which are also responsible for extremely disproportionate victimization and perpetration rates, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htmm) you get called a racist:

“Thank goodness Molon Labe is here to warn us about black folk. Which really equates to what gunloonery is all about: fear of minorities. –jadegold 3/27/08 at 6:14pm

http://blog.nj.com/njv_bryan_miller/2008/03/the_supremes_and_the_2nd_amend.html

It’s not fear, jadegold. It’s reality. We need to implement programs specifically aimed at urban demographics which account for BOTH disproportionate victims and perpetrators.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/crime/homicidemap/

http://www.fromwhereisit.org/?p=2554

http://www.gunpundit.com/576.php

So why aren’t Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Michael Nutter, etc…. calling attention to these statistics and advocating more Federal and State spending on social programs which would target this disproportionate victimization/perpetration rate rather than using the resources to target implements?

Because political correctness again is more important than dealing with reality.

(enter jadegold with the “all NRA cultists/quislings/extremists are racists….”)

[djkrlsn]

My bad--I assumed that because of gun control's documented history that gun control was racist and classist. But since stoner says otherwise--now reengage brain--it is not those who oppose gun control that are racist, but those who support it

[Jadegold]

Sorry, Molon, you are a racist. And let's face facts--much of the cult of the NRA is centered about a fear of minorities.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/12/26/in-case-you-missed-i.html

[djkrlsn]

The NRA is definitely not afraid of minorities--in the NRA members councils I am familiar with--you have all races active and participating--hardly the sign of racism--and by the way thank you for documenting some of the rabid gunbanners in your link (like John Kerry, Rebecca Peters, Dianne Feinstien, Barbara Boxer et al.

[ebaLnoloM]

boingboing.net??

Is that where you got the 9.7 million figure?

[kaveman]

Well I was a little skeptical at first, but with a name like boingboing, I'm sure their research is rock solid.

Sad.