From the Brady Campaign
From the inception of the Brady Act on March 1, 1994, through December 31, 2009, over 1.9 million gun purchase applications have been denied, up from 1.8 million through the end of 2008….Use this report to make the case that gun laws work by making it harder for dangerous people to get guns. Urge legislators to extend this successful law to cover all gun sales, including those at gun shows, and to fund the NICS Improvement Act to increase the number of relevant records in the NICS system.
Now Reality:
Got a NICS delay on Saturday. Because someone heard I’ve got 7 days of food stored or something.
Got my proceed today! Will share pics once I’ve picked up our new pretty thing.
Yep Jennifer joins the ranks of the Millions of people who got a hold on their NICS approval. That’s where the Brady Campaign gets their numbers. They say its “Criminals being denied guns”, but Jennifer is NOT a criminal, and was not denied a gun. NICS does jack and shit to stop criminals, it DOES waste a ton of time, and money.
and from Joan’s last post is this video
First lots of “I’m a gun owner but…” but I like how he shows two magazines, calls the “Clips” and addresses one as “Good” and another as “Just for murder” and then praises support for a bill that would ban BOTH magazines. Nice little anti-rights false dichotomy.
These are not honest people we deal with.
Joan and her ilk deal in FUD ( different than Fudds). They pander to people who are scared and ignorant of firearms and then spread Fear Uncertainty and Doubt which makes people panic and react with a “we must ban all guns” attitude.
Shameful to knowingly take advantage of people tp further your own agenda.
Of course politicians do it all the time, so it must be ok.
Hahah, and they made the mistake of letting comments.
I’m really amazed at the ignorance here.
It’s not hard to learn the proper terms. Especially if you’re being recorded as an official spokesperson. What does it show about Meacham’s expertise (especially as a “gun owner”) if he can’t even use the right term?
That’s be like someone in an abortion debate insisting that trimester meant 21 days.
Also I gotta love the “impartial” tone PBS takes. Because “compromise” means that both parties have to come together and ban assault weapons.
That’s the interesting thing about anti-gunners, they’re almost PROUD at not knowing ANYTHING about guns or how they work, and such exact terms are really just signs of mentally-ill and obsessed Bitter Clingers.
I’m really appalled tho that people this ignorant (see also the Carolyn McCarthy “Shoulder Thing That Goes Up” interview) are the ones who are drafting laws.
There is a lot of magical thinking here.
If they think a sign can prevent a criminal from crossing a line.
If they think a picture of a gun is as worse as the gun itself
If they think cosmetic features make a weapon more “deadly”
Then… yeah, maybe they think learning about firearms would “infect” them. And thus it’s a mark of “purity” how little they know.
Like a noblewoman bragging about how soft and pale her hands are.
Hell, that’s not too far off the mark. There have to be more than a few antis who have seen a fellow traveler learn more and more about guns and then… Fall.
Look at yourself. You changed sides because you learned.
That fear has to eat at some of them.
I once wanted to send my head through a wall when Joan was complaining that we were worrying about the details of a law too much. WTF? That’s how it’s going to be read, there is no ‘sorting it out later’ as she put it. Details mean things damn it.
Antis don’t want to debate they want to be OBEYED!
I like the way he tries to blame the expiration of the AWB on Bush so you’ll know it is evil.
Yet another example of how the anti-rights cultists use and abuse statistics – note how they do not claim that any of those denies are, in fact, accurate denies, nor do they even mention how many of those denies are overruled later due to additional information or another application into the system. Instead, they parrot a completely meaningless number as if it proves something.
And, speaking of, look at how they celebrate at denying a Constitutionally-protected individual right to American citizens – if that is the measure of success an organization chooses to claim, I want absolutely nothing to do with them.
I refuse to watch the video, but did he really claim that the larger magazine (differing from the smaller only by capacity) is “only for murder”? Wow. Just… wow.
It really is crazy, isn’t it?
I check out Joan’s website every couple of weeks and read her latest post today, which sounded to me like a self-pitying lament of why, why does she have to live amongst these gun barbarians? I really think, and hope, that the anti-gun people will turn into a fringe element that no one takes seriously, kind of like the Flat Earth Society. And it appears in comments of both gun rights and anti-gun sites (not that it’s a scientific study or sumthin’) that the pros outnumber the antis by a wide margin.
I will not watch the video (PBS is a bad joke), but I think it is interesting that larger capacity magazines carried by police are fine, but are also “just for murder” if I have them. It has been posted previously (forgive my lack of recollection for attribution – AG Holder syndrome), but does it make a difference is someone is murdered by the first, second, or the thirteenth bullet? I can make the parallel argument about how having a few more rounds could save someone from multiple home invaders.
I agree that the self-inflicted ignorance is their true mark of moral purity. They are so afraid and disgusted by firearms that they will never invest time learning about them. As said, they also worry that they might “convert” if they looked at it dispassionately, but this conflicts with their need to be emotionally invested in their cause.
Passion, not reason, so, “If I feel it, it must be true!” is their mantra.