Brady Campaign sells its member list to raise cash

[oneshooter]

The Brady Bunch are broke!

While NRA membership nears 4 million members, the flagship gun control group, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, has been revealed to have just over 50,000 members.
The once-secret Brady Campaign membership numbers were discovered when gun rights activist and blogger Joe Huffman found that the Brady Campaign was selling its membership list for direct mail marketing.
As Huffman points out, 50,000 members is far below the "about half a million members" that Michael D. Barnes, then Brady president, claimed in a 2004 interview.
That means that either Barnes misstated the "about half a million" number back in 2004 or, if that membership number was accurate, that about 450,000 former members of the Brady Campaign have left the anti-gun group in the last six years.


http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-30265-Detroit-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m6d11-More-bad-news-for-the-antigun-crowd-as-the-Brady-Campaign-sells-its-member-list-to-raise-cash


Not a lot I can add.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[safeinOhio]

1. Looks like the battle is over

No one is going to take your or my guns away. Very few want to and most would just as soon leave the laws where they are. Just like the 80% Christians think they are persecuted by the minority, the NRA will still have to push the fear factor to line their coffers.

So, now we can move on to civil rights that ARE being attacked and threatened. Time to move the gun room to the Out Door Life section.

[PavePusher]

2. Eternal vigilance..., etc.

And there are plenty of areas to recoupe ground lost over the last 80-90 years.

[safeinOhio]

5. Lost ground?

I'm over 60 and had never had so many gun rights in my life.

[PavePusher]

25. Re-open the full-auto registry...

as a prelude to doing away with it altogether.

Kill the "sporting applications" import restriction.

National reciprocity for permits, as a prelude to nation-wide Vermont-style carry "restrictions".

Reduce or eliminate the Federal excise tax on firearms.

Kill off abuses by the BATFE, as a prelude to eliminating their "jurisdiction" over firearms and arms in general.

Kill the stupid restrictions on barrel length for rifles and shotguns.

Kill the $200 tax and stupid paper-work for safety devices (aka, suppressors).

End the restrictions on rifles/shotguns over .50 calibre as "destructive devices".



Just a non-inclusive list off the top of my head in about 45 seconds. I'm sure if you put your mind to it, you can think of something to add....

[jazzhound]

26. Well that's nice.

Unfortunately folks in "no issue" states (disingenuously described as "may issue") states are unable to say the same.

[PavePusher]

27. Thank you for filling in where I missed the obvious! Oops. n/t

[safeinOhio]

31. Those states have been that way

for 60+ years. You can't say you lost something you never had.

[PavePusher]

34. Except at one point they did have it...

and lost it. So your statement is non-sensical.

[safeinOhio]

35. Which states had

"shall issue' and then switched? When?

[oneshooter]

38. All of the states had

both open carry and concealed carry at one time. There was no permits needed to purchase, posses or carry concealed. Most men owned either a military grade weapon or a sniper type rifle, and knew how to load and use it properly.

Think about it. There was a lot of history before you were born.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[safeinOhio]

47. A lot of history before and after I was born too.

Mobsters in the 20s robbing banks and killing cops with full autos, President assassinated and terrorist attacks and drug gangs too. But, I agree they were the good ole days. Think about it.

[X_Digger]

4. Is Frank Lautenberg still kicking?

How about Carolyn "Shoulder-thing-that-goes-up" McCarthy? Chuckie Schumer? Bloomie?

What's that you say? They haven't shut up yet? Okay, I won't either.

[safeinOhio]

6. That's ok

Just remember they are in the minority and powerless so it's gonna get harder and harder to scare the rest. Reminds me of the fundamentalist that will never give up until every other religion is destroyed. The cause will always need a boogie man so all those big bucks keep flowing to the NRA to get Republicans and a token Democrat elected. That helps keep minds off of the real issues that aren't settled, like corporate greed. You see statistics prove that there are not enough people or money to screw up the rights we enjoy now. The courts agree too. No restrictive Federal legislation has been passed in years. State laws are getting more liberal every day. Political movements to restrict firearms can't even get donations and have lost members left and right. It's like old Birchers still looking behind every bush for a commie, almost pathetic.
Now the only threat to gun rights is if an incident or two change public opinion. Just as a catastrophic oil spill has turned libertarians into sudden "big government socialist", mass murders and assassinations will be what changes public opinion and all other arguments will fly out the window. Habeas corpus went out the window because of 16 men with box cutters. Who'd thought? Your best bet to keep our gun rights now is to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of the real people that are a threat to gun rights, nut cases, terrorist and criminals. But, I'm sure that is too hard and inconvenient.

[X_Digger]

17. Why change what's already working?

Seen the latest FBI crime stats?

If we enforce the laws we already have on the books and stop plea-bargaining the gun charges, that'll speed up the process.

I know you'll trot out your favorite hobby horse, regulating private sales, but it isn't going to happen. Not when there's an easier solution that's less expensive and less intrusive.

[safeinOhio]

18. Stopping plea bargaining will only mean

more criminals go free. That shadow of a doubt thing and the cost of trials are the reason for bargains. You look for the easier less expensive solution. I lived in a state that had background checks on all handgun sales and it was no problem for legal buyers. I now live in a state where I can buy a handgun at a garage sale, no questions asked. No problem for any restricted buyers. Are your rights intruded on because you have to have a background check if you buy a gun from a FFD?

The stats from political polling shows that the majority of voters are for reasonable gun laws and not draconian restrictions. Just like the polls showed most Americans WHERE for more offshore drilling. One incident changed all of that. That is all it will take to change public opinion and the law. If BP had taken preventive measures and had been trying to use reasonable safety measures, opinions wouldn't be as harsh as they are now. We as gun owners and shooters have a responsibility to do everything we can to prevent illegal gun possession. Like the smart gardener that knows if you trim the canes back you get more and bigger berries. If you prune the fruit trees, you get more and better fruit. But that takes foresight, sadly missing by you. If the Hutarees' plan had worked and hundreds of cops killed, gun rights would be as popular as BP is now.

[X_Digger]

24. Careful, you'll rub the fur off that hobby horse.

Even if there were only one nut going apeshit a year, there'd still be the public backlash against "gunz" and cries for "someone to do something". (see UK, AU, DE).

Keep moving hop-a-long. Take that hobby horse outside, you're scuffing up the floors.

[PavePusher]

28. Refering to your first paragraph...

Which state has better crime stats, and can that be linked even casually to their system of gun control? Show a cause and effect, and maybe you have something.

Claiming that "it doesn't infringe your rights" is mere tautology unless you can demonstrate a beneficial effect. And even then, you'd have a long row to hoe. Lots of infringements of rights could have a beneficial effect; but this, friend, is America, and that's not how it is supposed to work here.

[safeinOhio]

32. I say they do not infringe on

the Second Amendment. Show were the courts have found any of my suggestions unconstitutional?

The states that have better crime rates depend more on population density than gun laws. See any chart comparing violent crime by state. If you go by that we should adopt Hawaii laws and stay away from Texas and Louisiana laws.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

36. Doesn' t work that way . . .

safeinOhio wrote in #18

The stats from political polling shows that the majority of voters are for reasonable gun laws and not draconian restrictions. Just like the polls showed most Americans WHERE for more offshore drilling. One incident changed all of that. That is all it will take to change public opinion and the law.

The framers endeavored to extinguish every possibility of the ignorant whims of immediate public opinion to have any influence on our rights.

Rights are not subject to polls or what a "majority of voters" desire.

As SCOTUS has said:

"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections." -- West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)

[safeinOhio]

46. and none of my recommendations or

the current laws in various states and cities that have those laws violate any of those rights as interpreted by the SCOTUS. On the other hand laws are written and implemented by congress and signed by the President, all of whom are elected. Registration of handguns is the law in some states. Background checks are legal. There are many current state and Federal laws regulating guns that do not violate the Second Amendment.

Sorry guy, you pulled the trigger before being sure of your target.

[X_Digger]

49. Again, you make the assertion..

.. that because none of the existing laws have been challenged, they are therefore constitutional.

Need I remind you again that nobody had standing to challenge many of these laws because the second amendment had not been a) ruled a fundamental right of ordered liberty for an individual, and b) incorporated against the states?

What's so sad is that it was a given that it applied to individuals (see debate surrounding the 14th amendment, US v Cruikshank, etc) until the early twentieth century. Why do you think the 1934 NFA was written as tax law?

[proteus_lives]

7. The battle is never over.

Not for gun rights, marriage rights, voting rights, religious rights, abortion rights, etc.

[safeinOhio]

9. Yes it is.

When you got em, it's over, duh.

Would make a great bumper sticker for a gay, bubba, Buddhist, Catholic. :sarcasm:

see post #6 to find out how to really protect gun rights.

[proteus_lives]

10. Short-sighted and foolish.

The minute you stop protecting your rights, they start taking them away.

Real-life 101.

[safeinOhio]

13. You are spinning your wheels and going nowhere

Once again, read the last paragraph in post #6 and see where the danger lies, that you aren't doing anything about and that is the only real threat to gun rights.

Once again look at the oil spill. 3 months ago, no one but a few environmentalist were calling for restrictions on deep water drilling. Just like the few calling for gun restriction now. One big spill and now the whole country is calling for ending or at least huge restrictions on it.

Those that opposed drilling had no effect, just like those that oppose you rights to own and carry a gun have and will have no effect on the laws. While all of the self righteous gun owners are spreading fear, they ignore the real threat and have not come up with any solutions to keeping guns out of the hands of the insane, criminals and terrorist. In fact most want to make it easier for those to get and carry guns so it will be easier for themselves.

Keep screaming about the BB and mayor Daily, while the terrorist and crazies keep stocking up. You've picked the easy no threat target while the real threat is standing right behind you.

For people that want to maintain their gun rights, you and others on this board are very short sighted. When restrictions come because of an anti-gun groups pressure, blame me. When restrictions come because of a huge attack by a group like the Hutaree, an assassination or a huge drug gang rampage, I'll blame you. If you look at history, the odds are in my favor.

[proteus_lives]

14. Who is screaming?

I support keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

You're starting to smell a little fishy.

Any sensible RKBA Democrat knows the difference between legitimate laws and stupid, fearful anti-shit.

"Keep screaming about the BB and mayor Daily, while the terrorist and crazies keep stocking up."

Ahh, that stink of fear. What new laws would you pass in the name of "safety"?

[safeinOhio]

15. Back ground checks on private sales of handguns

as is already the law in 10 or 11 states.

Better background checks on CCW permits

Longer more intense training for CCW permits.

More money spent on enforcement of straw sales laws.

Mandatory reporting of all missing and stolen guns.

Registration of all handguns and only handguns.

Greater use of "conflict resolution" classes in CCW classes.

Better (more $ spent) on FBI surveillance of hate groups and domestic terrorist groups.

Better and more thorough investigations of personal protection orders. Make sure the accused has legal rights and the threat is real.

A national gun violence list, like those for sex offenders.

None of the above would violate the Second Amendment or cause unreasonable restrictions on those legally able to own and use guns for sport or self defense. The small cost and inconvenience is worth it, if it stops or hampers a major incident that would threaten my gun rights. I would hope you and others could come up with other ways to keep guns out of the hands of the insane, terrorist and criminals. What can you come up with?

If you are worried about your right to own guns, stop swatting at the few mosquitos like the BB and a few big city mayors and start to focus on the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Public opinion will bite you in the ass, just like what happened because of 9/11, the economic crises from a lack of and repeal of regulation of the banks and the BP oil spill. Those are the type of things that can change public opinion and court rulings.

[pipoman]

19. Sounds like you have lots of woirk at your state level

as nearly every one of these items are only possible or plausible at the state level, never at the Federal level...never..

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. You seek further controls while saying "the battle is over"? How mendacious of you!

This sort of thing is exactly why we need to keep at it:

Between your self-contradiction in this thread, the other DUer who likes to alter articles and headlines he posts
to fit your agenda, and the demonstrated cooking of statistics by the Violence Policy Center, we can't trust you lot any further than we can throw you.

[safeinOhio]

22. No , you can't trust anyone

I'm saying the battle is over for public opinion until something as big as the BP thing happens with gun shots instead of oil. Your not reading anything I say or try to convey. Your mind is as closed as any fundamentalist is about the word of God as you hear it. You need to keep at it just like just like the cat that chases its' tail. There is nothing contradictory about my statements, only you ignoring the real problem because you have no solutions. The normal people that own guns will all suffer from your absents of forethought and reason.

I'm trying to save my gun rights, even thought I don't fit your warped simplistic ideology. The only reason you can't trust me is because of your own paranoia. You offer no solutions, only a forward march with blinders on as you head for the cliff. My only agenda is to save my 2nd Amendment rights, but you seem to miss that and lump me in with Mayor Daly because I don't fit in with your blind obedience with the paranoid crazy people.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. You gave us a list of preemptive "common sense gun controls"

that you state are needed even though what we have seems to be working? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Let's go through your list:

"Back ground checks on private sales of handguns, as is already the law in 10 or 11 states."

No, unless your can demonstrate better results than states that don't do it.


"Better background checks on CCW permits

Longer more intense training for CCW permits."

No. Demonstrably not a problem, and would be used by some locales merely to make it more difficult to obtain CCW permits
by the already law abiding. Examples: DC, New York, and Boston, with other examples from other DUers.


"More money spent on enforcement of straw sales laws."

Yes, on that one.


"Mandatory reporting of all missing and stolen guns."

No, as those already proposed are unnecessarily Draconian.


"Registration of all handguns and only handguns."

No. Do I have to use the terms "California SKS confisaction" and "New Orleans" again?



"Greater use of "conflict resolution" classes in CCW classes."

Why? CCW holders are already good at conflict avoidance.



"Better (more $ spent) on FBI surveillance of hate groups and domestic terrorist groups."

Which usually turn out to be 'people the current administration and/or the FBI don't like'
IOW, "Got COINTELPRO?"
What rights were you looking to preserve, again?


"Better and more thorough investigations of personal protection orders. Make sure the accused has legal rights and the threat is real."

Yes, on this one too.


"A national gun violence list, like those for sex offenders."

Unneeded, as it already exists as a subset of the current law enforcement intranet.


"None of the above would violate the Second Amendment or cause unreasonable restrictions on those legally able to own and use guns for sport or self defense. The small cost and inconvenience is worth it, if it stops or hampers a major incident that would threaten my gun rights. I would hope you and others could come up with other ways to keep guns out of the hands of the insane, terrorist and criminals. What can you come up with?"

And again, how are new restrictions on the law abiding going to hinder terrorists, when they've been perfectly willing
to rob National Guard armories and gun stores in the past?

Sorry, we've seen this kind of incrementalism before, and your FBI proposals demonstrate too much of a willingness
to throw the First and Fourth Amendments under the bus. Come back when you're feeling less like a philodendron.

[safeinOhio]

37. You'd be right, except...

"No, unless your can demonstrate better results than states that don't do it."

Only possible if you were to compare based on demographics that are the same. In other words, you can't prove they don't work.


"Better background checks on CCW permits

Longer more intense training for CCW permits."

No. Demonstrably not a problem, and would be used by some locales merely to make it more difficult to obtain CCW permits
by the already law abiding. Examples: DC, New York, and Boston, with other examples from other DUers.


Just a few days ago there was a mass murder in Florida by a CCW holder that had spent time in Jail in Cuba and all of his relatives knew he was a nut case.



"Mandatory reporting of all missing and stolen guns."

No, as those already proposed are unnecessarily Draconian.

Not draconian at all, already the law in many states. You'd be a fool or a crook(straw sales) to not report a missing handgun and any crime with it could then be pinned on you. Actually it makes sense.



"Registration of all handguns and only handguns."

No. Do I have to use the terms "California SKS confisaction" and "New Orleans" again?


California was only on a type of long gun, I said handguns. In both cases it was just a blimp and reversed by courts. In the big picture they were very rare events, illegal and statistically insignificant. Yet the number of crimes and murders using unregistered handguns is huge. Your chances of being the victim of an unregistered handgun are vastly more likely than ever having a gun confiscated by Federal or state governments. That is a statistical fact.


"Greater use of "conflict resolution" classes in CCW classes."

Why? CCW holders are already good at conflict avoidance.

In just the last 3 months or so, in just the Detroit Free Press alone there have 3 stories of CCW holders shooting people out of anger and not self defense. One for a road rage event, another for shooting at a fleeing person in a car jacking and a third involved an off duty rent a cop that chased down an unarmed man that was in his backyard and shot him. Now that is just in one city. If you get to use antidotal information, like 2 cases of confiscation over 50 years, it'd be fair to allow me 3 antidotes from less than 1 year in just one city.


"Better (more $ spent) on FBI surveillance of hate groups and domestic terrorist groups."

Which usually turn out to be 'people the current administration and/or the FBI don't like'
IOW, "Got COINTELPRO?"
What rights were you looking to preserve, again?

Two of the Hutaree members were charged with additional crimes yesterday in Federal court. You might remember that they were planning on ambushing a Lenawee cop and killing him. Then they were going to mow down another 100 at the funeral. Yes it can be abused and yes it can save many innocent lives.


"A national gun violence list, like those for sex offenders."

Unneeded, as it already exists as a subset of the current law enforcement intranet.


Now when a sex crime is reported the police check all known sex offenders in the area. They have the names and current addresses. It is a fact that many gun violence offenders are repeat offenders, just like sex offenders.



And again, how are new restrictions on the law abiding going to hinder terrorists, when they've been perfectly willing
to rob National Guard armories and gun stores in the past?

In the past many terrorist types, both foreign and domestic have purchased guns from sources that these type of laws could curtail.


But thanks for spending the time to think about it.:toast:

[cowman]

39. Sorry

but your willingness to add more restrictions would just make it easier for the antis to call for more and more until they got their wish of outright prohibition. Here in NV. the only place you have to register your guns is in Clark County which encompasses Las Vegas and registration is a joke there, all the other counties don't require our guns to be registered because the local authorities trust it's citizens.
A couple of years ago we had some Californian's move here and tried to get gun laws like Ca. has passed here, well needless to say they failed and moved out of the county because, and I quote " The backwards people of this county are not enlightened enough for our ideas". Talk about an elitist attutide which I find most anti 2nd Amend people to be

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. I base my objections to your proposals on statistics and historical evidence

Your examples of wrongdoing by CCW holders is a variant of the VPC's "ZOMG look at what CCW holders did (,and please don't
do the math while you're at it.)"

In point of fact, wrongdoing by CCW holders are "...very rare events, illegal and statistically insignificant." I use the same metric about CCW permit holders as a group as you use for gun confiscations.

You are rather blase about the numerous, documented abuse of surveillance by law enforcement against non-criminals
and those exercising ther rights. Do the words "Patriot Act" have no meaning for you?

Your proposed "gun offender" registry ALREADY EXISTS. It's in the law enforcement net the Justice Department runs, and
can be accessed by any cop with a terminal.


"In the past many terrorist types, both foreign and domestic have purchased guns from sources that these type of laws could curtail."

And the worst terrorism events in this country's history were performed with box cutters, liquid vehicle fuels and
fertilizer.

Frankly, I don't believe you are looking out for anyones' Second Amendment rights.

Your posts seem to me a way of keeping the gun control flame alive while giving the appearance of supporting
the Second Amendment rights of other Americans.

[X_Digger]

41. An exercise in 'forced teaming', for sure.

The old "we're on the same side, we gotta do something" schtick.

Transparent.

[safeinOhio]

42. Your paranoia runs deep.

You may think I'm a Brady plant, just as other might read your post and think you vote for Palin and have tea bags hanging from your hat.

No one has debunked my theory about the results of a massacre along the scope of the BP leak. I hope it never happens, but if it does, all of those on the give no ground, make the laws easier for criminals, the insane and terrorist to obtain guns group that think it will never happen and if it does, won't effect gun laws is whistling in the dark. Just as the "drill baby drill" crowd look like ass holes now, those do nothing folks will be marginalized on gun issues.

You all say you are against criminals having access to guns, yet have no valid proposals, other than longer jail terms after the fact. Believe what you want, just don't put me in with those that want to prohibit gun ownership. I'm not. Not one thing I suggest would restrict the ownership and use of guns by those already legally able to do so. All of them are in effect in some state or city and have not been found unconstitutional. Those thoughts are only your paranoia rising to the surface. Sorry I'm not a purist like you and any John Bircher would expect. A recent poll even suggest that a majority of NRA members support reasonable laws that are not supported by the NRA and other fanatics.

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. Nice attempt at triangulation: Paint objections to your "reasonable" ideas as teabaggerish.

But you know what? I've got more than a little history supporting the rights of all Americans here, and implying I'm a Friend of Sarah won't work.

Here's a few example. The first is from last Friday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x321387


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=260530#260813


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=144160#190345

(Post #12, especially)


-1 to you

[safeinOhio]

44. Can you find any post where I have called for a ban?

You guys suggested I was a Brady plant. I never said you were a Palin supporter or a teabagger. I only pointed out how your post might seem to reasonable people that hear the same crap from teabaggers.

I went along ways until the personal attacks and accusations about me. I've owned guns, target shot and hunted for many decades and am a current CCW holder in 2 states, hardly an "anti" as accused of by you and others. You back off the implications about me and I'll do the same. Fair enough?

[cowman]

48. And your willing

to trust the govt. with registration? I'm not. A couple of your suggestions are valid like opening NICS to private sellers, but as far as registration, screw that as I don't trust the govt one iota to keep their word about anything

[safeinOhio]

50. Like I said before

History has shown that the government does not take guns away. Two rare incidents in NO and Cal that where very limited and then overturned by the courts. Then nearly all gun crimes are committed with unregistered, illegal handguns, making your odds of being the victim of an unregistered hand gun likely. As I've said many times, the paranoia of taking guns away during an insurrection would be meaningless with handguns. They would be of little use against a squad of Marines. That is why I've said only handguns. 90% of gun crimes are handgun crimes.

Then again, I'm a liberal and I trust government more than crooks.

[TPaine7]

51. Is there a difference?

"I trust government more than crooks."

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. We're supposed to trust you, but worry about "*those* people" having guns?

Nope. Not gonna buy it.

As I often do, I quote from a fellow DUer (euromutt):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x321543

The gun prohibition movement is riddled with examples of people who have turned out to own (and sometimes be quite irresponsible with) firearms themselves. They just don't want other people owning guns: poor people, rural people, inner-city people, blacks, Italians, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, recent immigrants, etc. But they themselves are obviously perfectly trustworthy with a firearm.

I'm not claiming you are irresponsible or criminal. I am getting a "I'm all right, Jack" vibe from you, though.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. Didn't do your research, did ya? Note the second title, please:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=263537


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=245730

friendly_iconoclast (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-09-09 02:15 AM
Original message
These illustrate *why* gun ownership by the masses is a progressive idea
Just noticed these two threads close together on the "Latest Threads" page:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Don't get me wrong, pacifism is entirely honorable. But the American left/progressive movement

has always had to defend itself, sometimes by violent means.


Sadly, we may have to again.

It pays to check around before attempting to smear a fellow DUer.

[Travis Coates]

29. The real threat to gun rights

Is gunowners who support the idea of 'reasonable restrictions" such as NICS checks on private sales.

When I can walk into sears lay 200$ on the counter and walk out W/ a shotgun no questions asked Then I'll think we may have won.

When my grandson can leave school at lunch time to walk across the street to a field to get in some pheasant hunting like I did at his age then I might believe we've 'won"

[jazzhound]

30. I live in a no-issue state, disingenuously labeled a "may issue" state.

When you got em, it's over, duh.

Not all of us "got em". DUH!!!

I'd like to legally own a Ruger Mini-14, but I can't.

Sure aint "over" for me.

[SteveM]

55. Not in the DNC. Still locked in, like tin ducks at the gallery.

Maybe it's time that the gun-control room be moved out of the pilot house of the Democratic Party. Where it goes, I don't really care. But they are still on the pot in the Democratic Party.

[Euromutt]

3. The Brady Campaign's been padding its numbers for years

Basically, the tactic they resorted to was to keep quiet how many actual donors/members they had, and refer instead to "supporters"; a term into which they rolled anyone who wrote, e-mailed or phoned asking for information. That would certainly explain the discrepancy between half a million "supporters" and 50,000 actual donors.

[proteus_lives]

8. That puts a smile on my face!

The BB are among the lowest of the low.

[one-eyed fat man]

11. There's nothing to sell!

One way to judge the an organization's legitimacy is to see how many folks will pony up with cash to join and pay membership dues to fund an organization that represents their views. Philanthropic Research has a web site named GuideStar, which contains tax returns for many non-profit organizations. VPC tax returns show no public membership revenues, in other words, it has no dues paying members.

The VPC has ALWAYS been funded by a few well-heeled donors, primarily, the Joyce Foundation. Returns of the Joyce Foundation show $9,475,883 spent on gun control between 2005 and 2007. However, times are tough and the Joyce Foundation has been reevaluating the millions poured down the VPC rathole. After all, the VPC's two top employees, Josh Sugarmann and Kristen Rand, are siphoning nearly half of the total grant in just their salaries alone! Things get any worse and Sugarmann will have to use his FFL and open a shop in D.C. to supplement the Joyce funding!

For a better idea of VPC's funding and membership:

Does the VPC represent the people? (Part 1)

Does the VPC represent the people? (Part 2)

[-..__...]

12. How are they defining membership?

Just people who send in donations, or anyone that signs up on their website?

If it's the latter... I'm (or was), a member too (I used a "throw away" email account).

There are a number of RKBA activists that are "members" also.

Obviously not because any of us support their bogus agenda, but to get a heads-up on any of their activities.

Besides... every now and then I get a good laugh from some of their idiotic bile.

However, as it turned out, it was pretty much a waste of time since the majority of their nonsense could be found on their website anyways.

[DissedByBush]

16. Absolute privacy-invading scum

Anti-gun zealots signed up with these people, and now their information is going straight to direct-marketers.

I guess when you hook up with an anti-rights group, you get what you deserve.

Would be funny if the NRA bought the list though.

[Katya Mullethov]

20. Did they sell it to Al Queda ?

That would be ironic .

[Tejas]

23. burglars and home-invaders will line up to buy it. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

52. What would you sell them?

I'm genuinely perplexed what you would target that audience with.

Aside from home invasion.

[Katya Mullethov]

56. Mayo-jar electrolysis units for their cars

Metro rail service , Guevara tee shirts .............

[one-eyed fat man]

53. Icing on the cake!!!!!!

Brady Campaign promised donors and activists that "the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center will not sell your name or e-mail address to spammers or share it with unaffiliated groups."

Brady Privacy Policy

Email List Subscription
The Brady Campaign and the Brady Center use your email address to send you news and alerts that you have requested. When subscribing to this and future email lists, the Brady Campaign or Brady Center will collect and store the personal information that you provide. However, the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center will not sell your name or e-mail address to spammers or share it with unaffiliated groups.