Brady Campaign has high expectations.

LoginName

LoginName

Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,230
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
AWB, "gun show loophole", 5 day waiting period, registration and licensing, etc.

It's all on the table and, according to their "poll" results, these gun control measures should be implemented in the first year of the next legislative session.

Of course this is a Brady funded poll, so take the results with a grain of salt... at face value... what have you. [thinking]

Voter Poll Data Show Broad Support
For Stronger Gun Laws
In Obama Administration
For Immediate Release:
11-19-2008

Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792 Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Washington, DC - Post-election polling of people who voted in this last election shows broad support across the country for strengthening background checks and passing other common sense gun laws.

In polling of 1,083 voters conducted between November 5 and 9 by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the results showed that “2008 Presidential election voters of every type and description strongly support common sense gun laws and would like to see the Obama administration take action on these issues soon,” according to Rob Green, who headed the gun issue polling effort for the Washington D.C.-based firm. “Support for sensible changes in gun laws is strong not only among those who voted for [President-Elect] Obama; certain common sense restrictions are also supported by the vast majority of McCain voters.”

Penn, Schoen & Berland officials believe the numbers signify a cultural shift since the Supreme Court’s June decision upholding a right under the Second Amendment of the Constitution for Americans to have a handgun for self-defense.

“It is no longer plausible for opponents of gun legislation to assert that gun laws will somehow lead to a total gun ban. The right to own a gun is now recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, but so is the principle that reasonable restrictions are permissible,” Green wrote of the findings. “Perhaps the most compelling purely political story in this data is that the National Rifle Association is losing their old power to turn elections. A 79 percent majority of voters say that America’s most famous interest group was not an important factor in deciding the election; fully 74 percent of gun owners agree and say the NRA wasn’t a factor… We suspect it is because it’s a post-Heller world.”

The polling results can be found at www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/memo-11-18-08.pdf. Among the findings:

* More than three-quarters said they would support reasonable gun restrictions. Fully 83 percent of all voters favor criminal background checks for all gun sales, including 83 percent of moderates and 84 percent of McCain voters.

* There is extensive support for a wide variety of gun restrictions, including criminal background checks, registration, assault weapon bans, and a five-day waiting period for handgun sales. Even though these are initiatives that the National Rifle Association opposes, a majority of gun owners still support almost all gun laws tested in the poll. The only exception is when it comes to limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time, where only 42% of gun owners say they could support the measure. But support remains constant for all other groups, including people who voted for John McCain.

* Voters also say that they want to get things done quickly during the upcoming Obama Presidency. More than two-thirds said that the gun laws they support should be adopted during the first year of the next administration. This is true for McCain voters and gun owners too.

“We’re very pleased to see confirmation that the American people are rejecting divisive approaches to gun issues and are strongly supporting efforts to make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign. “With the strong support of the American people, we are hopeful that our elected officials will pass laws to make our communities safer for us and our families.”
Click to expand...

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1085

I have no doubt (with the exception of registration and licensing... that comes much later), that this BS is inevitable, but within the first year? Highly unlikely.
 
I always am flabbergasted by these "studies" and their "accuracy." Funny, I never get polled for these types of questions. So who were these gun owners that agreed ridiculous restrictions were a good idea? Anyone we know? Was this poll taken in DC?
 
Rob said:
I always am flabbergasted by these "studies" and their "accuracy." Funny, I never get polled for these types of questions. So who were these gun owners that agreed ridiculous restrictions were a good idea? Anyone we know? Was this poll taken in DC?
Click to expand...

It was taken 2/3s in the Brady Campaign office, and 1/3 on a Gun Range in an attempt to be fair.
 
i love it when these organizations leaders claim to experts when they have not let alone seen a gun in real life.these people are fascist pigs and are going to be the death of this country. i have actually had teachers say to me that all the stuff listed by these pigs does not infringe on my right to bear arms!.
 
IF he names Hilary as SofS - as looks possible - then we may see some action on this during his first 2 years as AWB 1 was part of the 'Clinton Legacy'.

So much for Change[rolleyes] Expect a re-hash of the Clinton policies.
 
MrTwigg said:
I wonder how they can explain the current run on firearms & ammo. It's like the country is arming for war !
Click to expand...

Raoul Duke and I have been discussing this for the last two weeks. There is no way that people are not noticing the massive economic spree of purchases of firearms, accessory and ammunition sales. Its gone past the normal market confines and has to be bleeping on radars across the nation.

The result or acknowledgment of it will be interesting -I wonder though just how foolish a ban would be at this time knowing that 1/3 of the country just went out and got armed?
 
The Brady's might fear-monger it by citing the 'dramatic increase in the number of deadly assault weapons' on the street and highlighting the need to 'control this threat to public safety'.
 
They have to lie..it's the only way they can push their agenda. Their poll is bullshit, they can say whatever they want to, who is going to call them on it besides us? It amazes me how they have spun the results of this election, if the Republicans had put up a better candidate (no disrespect to Sen. Mcain) I don't think BHO would have won, and I think he only won because many Republicans stayed home. Sorry if I went off a bit..This shit really pisses me off.[angry]
 
I'm all in favor of reasonible restrictions. The fact is though, most of the restrictions we face today aren't reasonible.
*Banning weapons based on cosmetic attributes is not reasonible. Can we ban blondes from our schools? How about boys who wear makeup?
*Giving one man (Police Chief) the power to deny you your right to own a gun based on his own political beliefs and biases is unreasonible. Should this same person have full discretion on whether or not you are allowed to reproduce?
*"Safe Storage" laws are completely unreasonible. Should you have to disable your car, take all the gas out of the tank and hide the keys so that your child or a criminal can't gain access to it and use it for improper means?


Some things are reasonible though.
*Criminal background checks on sales and transfers, ok, but it shouldn't take 10 years to get the check done. I've been satisfied with the MIRCS system the few times I've seen it.
*Appropriate training for Concealed/Opean Carry. If you're going to be carrying a weapon, driving a car etc on a public way, it is your responsibility to know what you're doing so you don't injure someone.

So let's all work together to enact reasonible restrictions - by getting rid of those that are unreasonible.
 
Pete85 said:
I'm all in favor of reasonible restrictions. The fact is though, most of the restrictions we face today aren't reasonible.
*Banning weapons based on cosmetic attributes is not reasonible. Can we ban blondes from our schools? How about boys who wear makeup?
*Giving one man (Police Chief) the power to deny you your right to own a gun based on his own political beliefs and biases is unreasonible. Should this same person have full discretion on whether or not you are allowed to reproduce?
*"Safe Storage" laws are completely unreasonible. Should you have to disable your car, take all the gas out of the tank and hide the keys so that your child or a criminal can't gain access to it and use it for improper means?


Some things are reasonible though.
*Criminal background checks on sales and transfers, ok, but it shouldn't take 10 years to get the check done. I've been satisfied with the MIRCS system the few times I've seen it.
*Appropriate training for Concealed/Opean Carry. If you're going to be carrying a weapon, driving a car etc on a public way, it is your responsibility to know what you're doing so you don't injure someone.

So let's all work together to enact reasonible restrictions - by getting rid of those that are unreasonible.
Click to expand...

The thing is that many of the vocal gun rights people are the everything or nothing crowd it seems.

Some people see it as unjust infraction on their liberties to be told if they want to CCW they have to take a course. I see it as not infringing on my right to own a gun, just the option to carry it concealed is restricted in a way. We all probably know someone who we would be scared to death if they could carry concealed because they lack judgement and more importantly safe gun skills.

NICS check is another, for one it can cover your ass if your a dealer, especially now a days given the bile that some Anti-gun people portray pro-gun people as. Again, does this hinder/prevent me from owning a firearm? No, it may delay it (especially now with the overload on the system) but usually its like 5-10 minute delay.

Both points are arguable, but many gun owners need to remember we need are trying to influence a persons perception about us who are not into the shooting sports.
 
Skald said:
The thing is that many of the vocal gun rights people are the everything or nothing crowd it seems.

Some people see it as unjust infraction on their liberties to be told if they want to CCW they have to take a course. I see it as not infringing on my right to own a gun, just the option to carry it concealed is restricted in a way. We all probably know someone who we would be scared to death if they could carry concealed because they lack judgement and more importantly safe gun skills.

NICS check is another, for one it can cover your ass if your a dealer, especially now a days given the bile that some Anti-gun people portray pro-gun people as. Again, does this hinder/prevent me from owning a firearm? No, it may delay it (especially now with the overload on the system) but usually its like 5-10 minute delay.

Both points are arguable, but many gun owners need to remember we need are trying to influence a persons perception about us who are not into the shooting sports.
Click to expand...

The argument, however, is that according to 2A, there can be NO infringement upon keeping and bearing arms. It doesn't say "they can only slightly inconvenience you." It says the right shall not be fringed upon. Plain and simple.

Everyone I know of who is afraid of guns would never own one, let alone carry one open or concealed.
 
Rob said:
I always am flabbergasted by these "studies" and their "accuracy." Funny, I never get polled for these types of questions. So who were these gun owners that agreed ridiculous restrictions were a good idea? Anyone we know? Was this poll taken in DC?
Click to expand...

Maybe.

I know that 83% of all statistics in 12% of published studies and be trusted 23% of the time.
 
there is nothing "reasonable" about "reasonable" gun control it is right there in the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!! to bear means to own and carry arms so having to take a CCW course or having a license is a infringement on my 2a rights. im dont want the government knowing i have a gun because they cant take it away if they dont know if i own one when the SHTF.
 
Last edited:
evan9201 said:
there is nothing "reasonable" about "reasonable" gun control it is right there in the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!!
Click to expand...

Argh!

...

That's how they're going to get the AWB of 2009 done. It's going to be under the guise of 'reasonableness'. Reasonableness is subjective!

Typical gun-grabbing, neo-prohibitionist: 'Reasonableness' is making sure every scary, black, cold piece of metal is only in the hands of a law enforcement agent or military personnel.
 
evan9201 said:
im dont want the government knowing i have a gun because they cant take it away if they dont know if i own one when the SHTF.
Click to expand...

I think I recall an old saying "Out of my cold, dead hands!" That's why I don't lose sleep over SHTF gun confiscation scenarios: since if it happens, I won't be around to care!

Alternatively, keep a couple of old C&R rifles and a P.O.S. .22LR revolver in a safe so you can hand over the decoys when they come knocking. That will probably shut them up.
 
Last edited:
I woke up the other morning out of dead sleep with a dreadful thought. Apparently my brain was working overtime while I slept and had to wake me up so I would remember.

Absent some sort of external stimulus - it will probably be very hard to implement some sort of outright ban or confiscation. In case nobody has noticed before - these things always seem to be prodded by some sort of incident. They don't just come out of nowhere. Whether it is just a coincidence of history - or a false flag event is sort of irrelevant. Any incident going forward will be used as an excuse to ram thru legislation that we all know they are just looking for an excuse to implement.

So here is what I woke up with the other morning:

1) Attack at Beslan school in Russia. 334 people were killed. I read a book a year or so ago by a ex US special forces guy who was there shortly after the final attack was over. It is called Terror at Beslan - and is definitely worth reading:
http://www.terroratbeslan.com/
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000096.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

One of the big things I took away from the book was that he says that an attack like this is almost inevitable in the US sooner or later.

2) A couple of years ago or so there were multiple media reports of Mexican smugglers bringing people over the border for payments of $50,000 or more. This obviously is not done for migrant factory workers who are going to Fall River.

3) Al Quaeda recently came out and said something about another spectacular attack in the works. They have come out and insulted Obama:
(they called him a house negro)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gQ5NlHvDvO92xGgn0pwBcDqQ_8UQ

Biden, Colin Powell, and others have all talked about Obama being "tested" once he gets into office.

So the possibility of an Al Qaeda attack is there. Al Qaeda is not stupid - they will time their attacks for maximum effect.


4) Obama has said he wants some sort of "civilian" national police corp that is as big as the military. Again - this would be hard to push thru absent some sort of reason to do it.



So combine all of this together: Al Qaeda obviously has no respect for Obama. They have an interest in making him look bad. With our economy tanking they also have a strategic reason to launch another spectacular attack. What kind of attack would truly rock the foundations of the US? A suicide attack on a large US school where hundreds if not thousands of kids were taken hostage and killed would surely do it.

If an incident like this were to somehow occur, Obama would have his excuse for another AWB - if not outright ban on firearms ownership and confiscation. This would also give him the perfect excuse to implement this civilian police corps he has talked about. They would need millions of people in it just so they could patrol every town for terrorists and station armed men in every school. This whole force would inevitably be used in other ways. All that wold be needed to tie the whole thing together is for the govt. to say that the terrorists bought some of their weapons at a gun show or some other such lunacy.



The other thing could potentially happen is something coming down from the UN. With Hillary as Secretary of State - and UN gun banners drooling at implementing their agenda in the US, Obama could theoretically use complying with UN treaties as a way to effect a gun ban or severe restrictions in the US.


I think the threat is real - it just isn't as simplistic as most people apparently are perceiving it.

Don't fall for the excuses - don't let a Reichstag fire lead you down a road you don't want to go down.
 
It ain't going to be a school.

I figure they'd try to go big, but might settle for something smaller.

PS: We already had our little Reichstag fire. It happened on 9/11/01.
 
The only gun law I could possibly defend is one that bans an adjudicated mentally ill person form owning one. (They have to take you to court and prove you're an immediate threat to yourself or others ) ..only remove the "to yourself part. If you wanna blow your brains, out, that's your lookout.

Restrictions on hand grenades? ...ok, maybe. Restrictions on automatic weapons? ..hmm, honestly not sure about this one, but I tend towards the "NO" side.

I don't even think felons should be banned from owning a gun. If you're still dangerous, why the Hell are you walking the street? If you're not dangerous, then what's the point?

As to concealed carry training, I'd like to see them do it as an incentive instead of a restriction. Take the course and the state will give you a tax credit. Money in your pocket usually works. There are a ton of ways to influence desired behavior that don't have to involve coercion. But governments rarely seem to use them.

We have libel laws and "fire in a crowded theater" restrictions on free speech. But no one makes you register your pencils or have a license to write a newspaper article.

Until the majority understands that the written word can be as dangerous as a gun, we're always going to have to fight for our 2A rights.

As for the Brady Campaign, I'd like to let you all know that our family made Sarah Brady cry a LOT this week.
 
Bill Nance said:
As to concealed carry training, I'd like to see them do it as an incentive instead of a restriction. Take the course and the state will give you a tax credit. Money in your pocket usually works. There are a ton of ways to influence desired behavior that don't have to involve coercion. But governments rarely seem to use them.
Click to expand...

No need. Using a gun, like operating a car, is risky endeavor. People will seek training in order to naturally mitigate risk. We don't need the government to become a parasite on this natural process.
 
Yeah, from the reasoning standpoint that the 2nd was implemented to keep us safe from a tyrranical government. It would seem to me that being allowed access to ALL arms and tools used by current military would be the only right way to do things.
 
Squished said:
Could someone explain to me what the purpose of a 5 day waiting period is for?
Click to expand...

HOMER: Oh, I don’t need anything like that… yet… Just give me my gun.

(He tries to take the gun.)

CLERK: I’m sorry, but the law requires a five-day waiting period. We’ve got to run a background check.

HOMER: Five days? But I’m mad now! I’d kill you if I had my gun.

CLERK: Yeah, well you don’t.

Video clip... [smile]
 

Similar threads

Fact Check: Brady Campaign Falsely Claims Guns ‘Are Rarely Used Successfully in Self-Defense’
Replies
0
Views
45
Reptile
Reptile
Want to know who has a monopoly of force in America?
2 3 4
Replies
111
Views
2K
fencer
fencer
Hanover High teacher accused of threatening to bring gun to school
2
Replies
32
Views
632
Devils Paintbrush
Devils Paintbrush
Washington state high-capacity magazine ban remains on books for now
Replies
1
Views
124
pastera
pastera
ATF Redefines All Private Sales & Who Has To Have A FFL
3 4 5
Replies
125
Views
3K
Uzi2
U
Back
Top Bottom