I got your liberal gun control agenda right here

[ellisonz]

Brady Campaign Releases Policy Recommendation Made to White House Task Force

Jan 11, 2013

Washington, DC – The Brady Campaign has been working closely with the Vice President’s Task Force on Guns. On Wednesday, Brady Campaign President Dan Gross accompanied by a group of families of victims of gun violence, met with the task force to discuss a set of policy recommendations. Today they are releasing a summary of these recommendations, which reflect the comprehensive approach supported by the Brady Campaign.

“We believe in the approach being taken by the Vice President. There is no one answer to preventing gun violence. It is a complex problem that deserves a comprehensive set of solutions,” said Gross. “The recommendations we are presenting to the White House reflect what we believe are the changes that can have the biggest impact right away. We cannot wait any longer. The American public wants this conversation to be taking place, but more importantly, they want action. We believe that as a nation we are better than this, and our recommendations can make a real difference.”

Brady Campaign Platform for Reducing Gun Violence in America

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence believes in a comprehensive approach to reducing gun violence in our nation, including both

policy to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people,
and public health and safety programs to inspire safer attitudes and behaviors around the 300 million guns in our homes and communities.

We believe the passionate and sustained voice of the American public is essential to creating meaningful change in these areas. Our goal is to bring that voice to bear in order to make this the better, safer nation we all want and deserve.

1. We call on elected leaders to support a policy platform that addresses the broad gun violence problem and is driven by the opportunity to save the most lives. Every death is a tragedy, whether in a mass shooting that horrifies our entire nation, or one of the 32 gun murders or 90 gun deaths in our communities and homes every day. We applaud the Obama Administration and others at the federal and state level who are leading a policy conversation based on our common goals and values, avoiding the usual, divisive political debate. Policies such as “universal background checks” on all gun sales would keep guns out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and other illegal purchasers without impacting anyone else’s Second Amendment right to own guns. Background checks are supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans, including gun owners -- and they would make us all safer. Let's start there.

2. As Americans, we must address how we think about guns in our communities and in our homes. Public education campaigns are critical to inspiring law-abiding individuals to make safer choices around gun ownership and access. Brady’s “ASK” and “Suicide Proof Your Home” campaigns are evidence that we can have a significant, quantifiable impact on public attitudes and behaviors by educating the public about the relative risks and benefits of gun ownership in an honest and credible way. Other public health and safety issues, such as drinking and driving, and smoking, also show how public health and safety campaigns and insights have had a significant impact on positively changing social norms around dangerous and risky behavior. One key opportunity is in the area of mental health, educating clinicians and parents or spouses of individuals with specific mental illnesses about the dangers associated with access to guns in the home.

Policy recommendations:

Our top policy priority is closing the massive hole in the background check system that enables 40% of all gun sales to take place without background checks, not only at gun shows, but also with the added anonymity of the internet. As a result convicted felons, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and other prohibited purchasers can easily purchase guns with no questions asked. Calling it a “gun show loophole” trivializes the problem. “Universal background checks” on all gun sales would have a clear positive impact on public safety, and is also clearly compatible with the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns. These policies also tend to enjoy the greatest public support. For example, 92% of Americans and 74% of NRA members support background checks.

Examples of additional policies that should be implemented include:

- Strengthen the background check system that already exists to ensure, for example, that mental health and other relevant records are in the background check system and readily available within the states.
- Improve the ability to identify dangerous people who present the most risk, especially among the mentally ill.
- We should provide legal mechanisms to prevent those dangerously mentally ill who present the most significant risk from possessing guns, while carefully protecting the rights of those who are mentally ill but do not pose a risk.
- Other dangerous people who are currently not prohibited from purchasing firearms include: terrorists, violent misdemeanants (not involving domestic violence), violent juvenile offenders, and some substance abusers.
- Support law enforcement by giving them the tools to crack down on gun trafficking and prevent straw purchases.
- Limit the number of guns that can be purchased in a short period of time.
- Make gun trafficking a federal offense.
- Allow the ATF to conduct more than one spot inspection a year for dealers (currently prohibited).
- Eliminate legal loopholes that unfairly protect dangerous practices that contribute to gun deaths and injuries.
- Guns are the only consumer product exempt from federal product safety regulations, so feasible safety features are not required.
- Negligent gun companies are the only businesses shielded from state civil justice laws, so corrupt gun sellers are not held accountable.
- Crime gun data is the only special industry exception to public disclosure under FOIA, so officials, law enforcement and researchers are kept in the dark.
- Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control, are prevented from studying guns as a public safety risk, so important public health data on policies and programs to prevent gun injury are unavailable.
- ATF is prevented from requiring basic store inventories that would prevent thefts and expose corrupt dealers, and minimal punishment and excessive evidentiary hurdles make it unduly difficult to punish traffickers and corrupt dealers.

Limit the availability of military-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines that are designed for mass killing.

These policy recommendations are presented to our elected leaders and to the American public who can work together to make our nation safer.

###

The mission of the Brady organization is to create a safer America for all of us that will lead to the dramatic reduction in gun deaths and injuries that we all seek.

Dan Gross is the President of the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. A photo and more information about Dan Gross is available here.

For more insight on gun violence prevention, follow The Brady Blog, Facebook Page and Twitter Account. Brady News Releases are available via RSS.

###

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1560/

[krispos42]

1. I agree with the following:

- Strengthen the background check system that already exists to ensure, for example, that mental health and other relevant records are in the background check system and readily available within the states.
- Improve the ability to identify dangerous people who present the most risk, especially among the mentally ill.
- Limit the number of guns that can be purchased in a short period of time.
- Make gun trafficking a federal offense.
- Allow the ATF to conduct more than one spot inspection a year for dealers (currently prohibited).


The rest I either don't agree with or don't know enough about to form an opinion.

[rl6214]

18. Agreed

Not all RKBAs advocates are unbending and unwilling to accept reasonable ideas

[AtheistCrusader]

2. That is a lot less bombastic, and a lot more technically accurate than I was expecting from

that source.

[ellisonz]

3. Perhaps you've been mistaken on these issues

[Clames]

4. More likely he knows the history of the junk the Brady Campaign...

...usually spews.

Same old stuff the Brady's have been calling for for years.

[Starboard Tack]

7. What junk would that be? Trying to prevent gun violence?

God forbid anyone would try to prevent the gun violence that you seem to support with every mocking post you make. I have yet to see you make one positive post on DU. Maybe you would care to share one with the rest of us.

[gejohnston]

10. dishonest propaganda

there is no difference between the NRA and Brady/VPC. Both are equally dishonest.

[Starboard Tack]

12. Sorry, but there is a lot of difference between them.

They may well both distort facts, but to to say there is no difference is rather disingenuous. The VPC may not have all the facts right, but it's agenda is honorable. The NRA has evolved into a patently evil organization.

[gejohnston]

15. don't buy it and this is why

VPC is intentionally dishonest and they know it. There is nothing noble about noble liars. If you have to make shit up, there is something wrong with cause.
The pot prohibition propagandists thought they were doing the right thing in the 1930s.
Their agenda can't be that honorable if they depend on dishonorable means. I'm a anal prig, I admit that.

[Pullo]

22. "VPC is intentionally dishonest and they know it."

Last edited Sat Jan 12, 2013, 10:38 PM - Edit history (2)

Bingo

"Assault weapons ..... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

Josh Sugarmann, VPC, 1988

The VPC up until the late '80's was focused on banning handguns outright. After realizing that wasn't going anywhere, they devised the whole "assault weapons" ploy. Not because they were involved in a statistically significant number of crimes, the VPC however changed their strategy to go after low-hanging fruit first.

So what that has resulted in is a two-decade long dishonest disinformation campaign demonizing so-called "assault weapons." As if bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, collapsible stocks, and pistol grips made the guns any more deadly or functionally different from more 'ordinary' looking semi-auto rifles.

As a result, gun owners as a group are resentful toward those who incorrectly use terminology, either intentionally or through their own ignorance, to advocate for more restrictive gun controls.

Such dishonesty and disinformation perpetuated by the VPC and their allies has not been constructive at all to having an open and honest debate on firearm policy.

[MightyMopar]

37. They sure were ahead of their time, these miltary guns have made big splash lately

What Sugarman said wasn't dishonest it was just using the gun manufacturers marketing against them.

[Pullo]

50. ehh, no

It was Sugarmann who coined the term "assault weapon." Assault rifles, as defined by the military, are select fire, medium caliber, fully automatic machine guns. Assault rifles have been severely restricted for decades. "Assault weapons," military LOOKING semi auto guns, function the same as any semi-auto.

It was the push to ban them, however, that made these firearms, functionally the same but only cosmetically different, that fueled their popularity. The gun manufacturers just went with the flow.

[MightyMopar]

53. Muscle cars, pony cars, sporty cars, they'll have high insurance rates cause they wreck a lot

and because of the people who buy them wreck a lot. Red cars don't wreck a lot because they're red, they wreck a lot because the people who buy red cars wreck a lot. The whole gun culture needs dialed back and the nit picking for moral authority has worn thin.

[Starboard Tack]

24. I'm not aware of any lies they have told.

Both sides tend to bend the stats and some "facts" may be inaccurate. I don't think the pot propagandists ever thought they were doing the right thing for anyone but themselves, the tobacco industry, the liquor industry and the segregationists. Fact is pot never killed anyone and firearms kill thousands every month.

[gejohnston]

34. need to do some actual research

and no, all prohibitionists thought they were doing the "right thing" The pot prohibitionists had nothing to do with any of them. It was anti Mexican and for the pulp wood and new nylon industry. I'm sure people have driven stoned and killed someone.

[Starboard Tack]

57. I'm not the one attacking them

Point out your issues with the VPC and we'll discuss. I have no idea what driving under the influence has to do with anything here, not to mention "pulp wood" and "nylon".

[gejohnston]

58. they are against gun and archary ownership

I don't think they actually care about violence. If you are for saving lives without being culture warriors, then you should be against violence and suicide regardless of means. Since they are not, they are not for saving lives then are they?
Here is a question. Why do they have an FFL? Sugarmann uses their offices as the business address for a gun shop, at least that is what he tells the ATF. I'm sure he passes his annual inspections. He has had it for at least six years.
1-54-000-01-8C-00725 and is valid until January 2014

Example in their "reports" they describe gun shows as "tupperware party for assassins" I never heard of a mob hit with an M-6 Scout, if you could find one.
another claim is that Eddie Eagle is the NRA's Joe Camel to promotes gun sales to kids.
That is a complete fucking lie. Eddie Eagle is based on Billy Hooks gun safety program in New Zealand developed by the Mountain Safety Council now operated by the police. The difference is that Billy Hooks would be viewed as promoting gun ownership to many people. So, they are using hysterics to attack a safety program. That doesn't sound like someone who actually cares about saving lives does it? It certainly doesn't to me.

[Starboard Tack]

59. I think they make valid points about Eddie Eagle and the NRA

I've never seen any proposal by the VPC to ban all guns. Most of what they say makes excellent sense. As guns are the principle purveyors of violence in this country, their focus on gun control is appropriate.
Someone has to stand up against the madness. I wish them well.

[gejohnston]

60. you didn't watch the video, because

there is no way you can say they had a valid point if you did. The bird says "stay away and tell an adult" So, no that is not a valid point. Unless there is some sophisticated reverse psychology going.

[Starboard Tack]

61. I did watch the video which was good, on the surface.

However, the VPC makes valid points that the NRA's use of it is a cynical way to introduce kids to the gun culture.

[gejohnston]

62. sorry, not buying it

would you like to see an actual NRA video? look for it on youtube, I'm not in the mood for some ............. to bitch about it. VPC doesn't have a valid point any more than you do about "putting away our play things" which is insulting an entire culture. That is the same as saying "we elites know better than you commoners". That doesn't play in the US. I bet it gets a big FU in France too. That is the same as going to the UK and calling the Queen Mother a slut or worse.

Please point out how Eddie is anything like the Joe ads? Joe was smoking, not telling kids to stay away. Most kids get interested in guns from their elders or video games. Unless you can show me an example, it is fear mongering nonsense with no valid points.
BTW, when are they going to surrender their FFL?

[WinniSkipper]

20. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. nt

[Starboard Tack]

26. I'm not a big fan of the VPC

but to compare it to the NRA is absurd. There is a lot of reasonable ground in the middle to find solutions for a real problem. The NRA promotes the idea of a failed society and it is in it's interest to see it fail. It's success depends on society's failure. How fucking sick is that.

[Ashgrey77]

51. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Honorable or not.

I thought us liberals we're against the "You have to break a few eggs to make a omelet" mentality. Lately it seems like I thought wrong.

[Starboard Tack]

56. Maybe you'd like to point out the wrongs of the VPC

Trying to stop gun violence seems like a pretty good thing to me.

[MightyMopar]

30. Haven't we heard this "they both do it " false equivalency before?

Isn't propagating this meme the corporate media's raison d'être?

[Starboard Tack]

32. So how do you feel about Mr. Yeager?

[AtheistCrusader]

5. No, this press release is qualitatively different from past suggestions.

First time I've heard of them putting the 'gun show loophole' in the proper context, for instance.

[ellisonz]

6. So you're supportive of this legislative agenda?

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Most of it.

Especially registration, which I have long believed can be made to work


Let's see what the legislative 'high cap' mag stuff looks like before I decide on that part.

[ManiacJoe]

13. Maybe it was a leadership change.

> That is a lot less bombastic, and a lot more technically accurate than I was expecting from that source.

Now that Sugarmann is gone, they might start being more helpful.

Agreed, that press release was a lot more factual and more accurate and less propaganda than they used to do.

[gejohnston]

9. a good start, but still needs work

Last edited Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:59 AM - Edit history (1)

- Other dangerous people who are currently not prohibited from purchasing firearms include: terrorists, violent misdemeanants (not involving domestic violence), violent juvenile offenders, and some substance abusers.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/terror-watch-list-counter-million-plus

But civil liberties groups argue that the government's new criteria, which went into effect over the summer, have made it even more likely that individuals who pose no threat will be swept up in the nation's security apparatus, leading to potential violations of their privacy and making it difficult for them to travel.

"They are secret lists with no way for people to petition to get off or even to know if they're on," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122901584.html
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/417572/new_guidelines%3A_one_tip_could_put_you_on_the_terrorist_watch_list_(and_good_luck_getting_off_it)

Guilty until proven innocent, no due process? That sounds pretty right wing to me.

- Strengthen the background check system that already exists to ensure, for example, that mental health and other relevant records are in the background check system and readily available within the states.
- Improve the ability to identify dangerous people who present the most risk, especially among the mentally ill.
- We should provide legal mechanisms to prevent those dangerously mentally ill who present the most significant risk from possessing guns, while carefully protecting the rights of those who are mentally ill but do not pose a risk.

That has more to do with medical privacy laws than gun laws.

- Other dangerous people who are currently not prohibited from purchasing firearms include: terrorists, violent misdemeanants (not involving domestic violence), violent juvenile offenders, and some substance abusers.

It just said pot smokers are a threat to public safety. Not a very liberal stance, but the rest has merit.

- Support law enforcement by giving them the tools to crack down on gun trafficking and prevent straw purchases.

Good principle but would have to see the specifics.

- Limit the number of guns that can be purchased in a short period of time.

The economy is already doing that

- Make gun trafficking a federal offense.

I thought it was

- Allow the ATF to conduct more than one spot inspection a year for dealers (currently prohibited).

I'm OK with that

- Eliminate legal loopholes that unfairly protect dangerous practices that contribute to gun deaths and injuries.

weasel words, meaningless.

- Guns are the only consumer product exempt from federal product safety regulations, so feasible safety features are not required.
- Negligent gun companies are the only businesses shielded from state civil justice laws, so corrupt gun sellers are not held accountable.

Not true. The law only protects against meritless law suits modeled after SLAPP suits.

- Crime gun data is the only special industry exception to public disclosure under FOIA, so officials, law enforcement and researchers are kept in the dark.

Also not true, law enforcement does in fact have access.

- Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control, are prevented from studying guns as a public safety risk, so important public health data on policies and programs to prevent gun injury are unavailable.

There is no such ban, only a ban on lobbying and junk science. Guns are not infectious diseases and can not seriously be studied the same.

- ATF is prevented from requiring basic store inventories that would prevent thefts and expose corrupt dealers, and minimal punishment and excessive evidentiary hurdles make it unduly difficult to punish traffickers and corrupt dealers.

what are they talking about? I doubt if that is true.

[MightyMopar]

31. National Rifle Association (NRA), has systematically suppressed data about gun violence

1) Dig for the Data
The gun issue demands a great deal of professional rigor from journalists because the chief lobbying group for the gun industry, the National Rifle Association (NRA), has systematically suppressed data about gun violence and the impact it has on Americans’ lives.

When Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) studies in the early 90s revealed that guns in the home present more of a danger to the occupants than potential home invaders, the NRA used its political muscle to prevent the agency from funding research on firearms’ death and injury. For approximately 15 years, the CDC appropriations bill has contained the following language: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” According to Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, “We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions.” This year, the NRA was successful in adding a similar amendment to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) appropriations language.

The NRA has also acted to stifle the amount and quality of data available to the public regarding illegal firearms trafficking. The “Tiahrt Amendments” to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) appropriations bill prevent the media, researchers and the general public from accessing detailed trace data on guns recovered from crime scenes. This greatly hinders researchers’ attempts to “connect the dots” when it comes to deriving broader patterns of interstate (and international) gun trafficking.

The overall result is that gun-related research has been stifled. The gun lobby is quick to cite a 2004 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, claiming it found that gun violence prevention laws have no positive effect. In truth, the report concluded that the effectiveness of gun laws can’t be evaluated yet because there simply isn’t a sufficient quantity or quality of data to make such a determination (the report did specifically analyze the work of Fox News commentator John Lott and found there is no evidence that the relaxation of concealed carry laws across the country reduces crime). Since the NAS review, there have been new studies (conducted by Daniel Webster, Garen Wintemute and others) that show the positive effects of gun violence prevention policies, so it is important to consider the full body of research that is currently available.

Finally, reporters should note that gun-related websites are infamous for being sources of bogus quotes, statistics and misinformation (as has been well documented by MSNBC host Rachel Maddow). The bottom line is that reporters must exercise due diligence to uncover the facts and data necessary to get a story right.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=554

[gejohnston]

35. they can research all they want

NIJ still does. The studies were junk and seriously flawed. They were advocacy, not science. The Kellermann study it mentions was not peer reviewed and was debunked by criminologists.

The NRA has also acted to stifle the amount and quality of data available to the public regarding illegal firearms trafficking. The “Tiahrt Amendments” to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) appropriations bill prevent the media, researchers and the general public from accessing detailed trace data on guns recovered from crime scenes. This greatly hinders researchers’ attempts to “connect the dots” when it comes to deriving broader patterns of interstate (and international) gun trafficking.

but is available to law enforcement and the ATF themselves. I fail to see how the media or how some ER doctor pretending to me a criminologist like Wintemute.

I saw the show where Rachel said "everything you read is biased and believe only what I tell you"
Yes reporters should exercise due diligence to uncover facts and data. Problem is, they copy paste press releases most of the time.

[MightyMopar]

42. So are you a statistician or are you just getting your talking points from the "highroad"?

Information from the Brady campaign is biased but it's A-ok if it's from the "highroad"!

[gejohnston]

44. literate enough to read the methods used

and I don't read highroad, you cited it I didn't.

[MightyMopar]

46. I think all DUer's need to go over to the "highroad" and see what a cesspool it is

[iiibbb]

11. Just read an article about Biden's taskforce

Speaking as a gun owner, I could compromise with magazine limits if that would satisfy people... but I'd like to see it somewhere around 15 instead of 10. Shit, you could even ban the larger ones outright. I would like something written into the legislation to ease my mind about future encroachments into gun rights.

Since I carry a handgun in an area with feral dogs. I can imagine 5 dogs, 3 rounds each and feel okay about that. I don't want to be mucking around with a magazine change. 10 is not quite right. 20 seems larger than needed.

I still think the following would accomplish more than something that looks like the old AWB

(1) legalize pot to deescalate drug related gun violence.
(2) eliminate mandatory minimums for drug possession, let those people out of jail, then create mandatory minimums for violent crimes with multipliers for contact crimes and those committed while in possession of a firearm.
(3) address education and illiteracy to alleviate poor on poor gun violence.
(4) subsidize mental health care for people who may commit these acts (they're always seem to be on somebody's radar).
(5) better background checks... better linkages between mental health and violence disqualifies and the background checks... however there must be a decent appeal process.
(6) intensify the background checks for first time purchasers.
(7) give private sellers access to the background check system (I think a lot of people would do this if they had access to it in a private party sale).

[Starboard Tack]

14. Out of curiosity, how many feral dogs have you had to shoot so far?

[iiibbb]

17. None

It's a precaution. I'm out there alone. I'm miles from a road. They are known to be in the area.

Just because you don't think something is a threat, doesn't zap it out of existence; I don't care how existential you think you are.


http://icwdm.org/handbook/carnivor/FeralDog.asp

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=4871902

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0821_030821_straydogs.html

http://survivalscoop.blogspot.com/2009/08/surviving-wild-dog-attack.html


They are not something to be trifled with.


And it just goes to show that gun control people aren't in a position to tell people what they do and do not "need". There are many situations specific to individuals that I'm just not keen on some bureaucrat deciding its merit... this is a right to keep and bear arms... and for a law abiding citizen to decide for themselves what serves a perfectly reasonable need.

[Starboard Tack]

23. I am under no illusion about the dangers of feral beasts.

Nor do I consider it unreasonable to carry an efficient weapon to defend against such attacks. I'm trying to a feeling for what is reasonable. Any and all solutions should be based on reasonable needs and public safety. In that light, I fail to see how high capacity clips or AR-15 type weapons are reasonable for civilian ownership.
A revolver and/or shotgun should more than suffice in any civilian self defense situation.

[iiibbb]

25. I don't have a feel for that.

I picked a gun with 15 rounds for that purpose. I could see 10 being not enough. I could see a revolver being inadequate. I don't know how to reconcile what you feel about AR-15 with what I think is a reasonable precaution for dogs.

I mean, I suppose I could carry a different rifle with me, but I like my single shot rifle because it is short, light, and very accurate. It also has exchangeable barrels so I can put a muzzle-loading barrel on it and the gun handles exactly the same way no matter what season I'm hunting; this insures my accuracy and I've never had a deer run more than 30 yards.. and most drop on the spot.

I'm lukewarm about controlling things like AR-15s because, functionally, they are not a lot different than many non-military rifles. So I don't get the uproar about them.

I've got another post on another thread with my proposals for reducing gun violence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=102589


I have a difficult time getting behind laws that don't have a mechanistic connection between guns and actually reducing crime.

[57_TomCat]

19. In my case...

ten I think maybe a few more. All were killing livestock. On one occasion three were were trying to kill a calf and and after I shot the first one the other two came at me. I will stipulate that none of the incidents required me to empty the fifteen round magazine but that situation with three came close. Twelve rounds on that one. All that was twenty plus years ago but still vivid memories. The number of feral animals and natural predators I dispatched on that little homestead were more numerous than I anticipated.

As a side note the county sheriff was thirty minutes away. I will never support a magazine capacity limit due to the fact I might be by myself when bad stuff happens without access to extra cops with guns around the corner.

[iiibbb]

21. Yeah... I'm lukewarm to the idea of mag limits...

...but if this is something they want to talk about... this is where I'd sit on the issue.

[raidert05]

16. I agree on all those points

Can we get a military clause thrown in there, when they go to run my background check they see I have a TS/SCI clearance that's already a automatic 5 day waiting period for me how much more in depth can you get than a background check for a TS/SCI clearance?

[geckosfeet]

28. I think so. But hasn't this been Brady Campaign policy for a long time?

No one in congress has the backbone to propose legislation.

[MightyMopar]

29. It's absurd to compare Brady campaign to NRA, Brady's don't have multi millions of $ behind them.

NRA is a ruthless 501c supported by arms merchants and ALEC. Brady's are a non profit.

Although I can see why the RBKA extremists always try to establish this false equivalency for propaganda purposes

[gejohnston]

33. actually they do

they get millions from the Joyce Foundation, most of which goes to salaries. Same goes for VPC. They don't get money from ALEC, they pay ALEC.

[MightyMopar]

36. NRA and ALEC are both funded from big business and often act in concert , Brady is just a foundation

http://www.friendsofnra.org/National.aspx?cid=2&sid=0
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005883
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082

[gejohnston]

38. no

so, where does Brady Campaign get its nearly four million a year? Not from donations.
http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/health/brady-center-to-prevent-gun-violence-in-washington-dc-1136

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00113449

[MightyMopar]

39. Where does the Brady Campaign get its money? MOST OF THE SAME PLACES NPR GETS IT'S MONEY+SOROS!

That evil NPR!

http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/special-opportunities/special-opportunities-grantees/
http://www.apts.org/node/116/view
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-507931.html

[gejohnston]

40. NPR is funded by listeners like me.

ironic you are citing thehighroad.org

[MightyMopar]

41. Scumbag sites like "thehighroad" is where all the RBKA extremist talking points are coming from

bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2008/09/controversy-at-high-road.html


Yeah, all those shadowy groups that fund NPR!

[gejohnston]

45. Better Business Bureau is the same as

the high road? How about reading the links before you respond.

[MightyMopar]

47. So the Brady Camapign doesn't meet BBB standards for charity. Who cares about that but you

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (the Brady Center) does not meet the following 5 Standards for Charity Accountability.

Standard 4: Compensated Board Members - Not more than one or 10% (whichever is greater) directly or indirectly compensated person(s) serving as voting member(s) of the board. Compensated members shall not serve as the board's chair or treasurer.

Brady Center does not meet this Standard because:

2 members out of the 19 member board of directors (11%) are compensated directly.

Standard 6: Board Policy on Effectiveness - Have a board policy of assessing, no less than every two years, the organization's performance and effectiveness and of determining future actions required to achieve its mission.

The Brady Center does not meet this Standard because:

The board of directors does not have a written policy stating that, at least every two years, an appraisal be done assessing the organization’s performance and effectiveness and determining future actions required to achieve its mission.

Standard 7: Board Approval of Written Report on Effectiveness - Submit to the organization's governing body, for its approval, a written report that outlines the results of the aforementioned performance and effectiveness assessment and recommendations for future actions.

The Brady Center does not meet this Standard because:

It did not produce a written report outlining the results of its most recent effectiveness assessment.

http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/health/brady-center-to-prevent-gun-violence-in-washington-dc-1136

[gejohnston]

48. I would hope donors and supporters

would care.

[MightyMopar]

49. Check out the Better Businees Bureau on Ripoff report .com

http://www.ripoffreport.com/bbb-better-business-bureau/better-business-bure/better-business-bureau-bbb-co-46g94.htm

Who are they to judge anyone?

[MightyMopar]

52. Brady campaign doesn't sell itself as a charity so using your BBB metrics is kind of misleading

Ironic? It's like complaining about Sonny's BBQ not being healthy, they never said they were.

Now many foundations do sell themselves as charities and should be looked at that with those kind of metrics while the Brady campaign is an advocacy deal. I's sure they're not perfect but they're angels compared to the NRA and ALEC.

[gejohnston]

54. They are according to the IRS

The Brady Campaign's affiliate, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions and membership dues to the Brady Center are deductible as charitable donations for federal income tax purposes.

good enough for me.

[MightyMopar]

55. Good enough for someone pushing a misleading agenda that Brady and NRA are equal

Kind of have the people that support NPR on one side and the people that support ALEC on the other side.

[Bay Boy]

43. I liked to hear what this is about:

- Eliminate legal loopholes that unfairly protect dangerous practices that contribute to gun deaths and injuries.