MOTHERJONES: Unmasking a Gun Lobby Mole

[Segami]

There's Something About Mary: Unmasking a Gun Lobby Mole


NEWS: Mary McFate was a prominent gun control activist. Mary Lou Sapone was a freelance spy with an NRA connection. They are the same person. A Mother Jones investigation.

By James Ridgeway, Daniel Schulman, and David Corn

July 30, 2008


This is the story of two Marys. Both are in their early 60s, heavyset, with curly reddish hair. But for years they have worked on opposite ends of the same issues. Mary McFate is an advocate of environmental causes and a prominent activist within the gun control movement. For more than a decade, she volunteered for various gun violence prevention organizations, serving on the boards of anti-gun outfits, helping state groups coordinate their activities, lobbying in Washington for gun control legislation, and regularly attending strategy and organizing meetings.

Mary Lou Sapone, by contrast, is a self-described "research consultant," who for decades has covertly infiltrated citizens groups for private security firms hired by corporations that are targeted by activist campaignsFor some time, Sapone also worked for the National Rifle Association.

But these two Marys share a lot in common—a Mother Jones investigation has found that McFate and Sapone are, in fact, the same person. And this discovery has caused the leaders of gun violence prevention organizations to conclude that for years they have been penetrated—at the highest levels—by the NRA or other pro-gun parties. "It raises the question," says Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, "of what did she find out and what did they want her to find out."




<http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/mary-mcfate-sapone-gun-lobby-nra-spy.html>

[villager]

1. and yet many -- even on this board -- allow themselves to be bamboozled by the NRA, not seeing them

as a lobbying group for gun manufacturers (which they are), but buying into the myth of them being "just folks..."

[Segami]

3. Deception can penetrate even the sharpest of nimble minds.

[fl410]

4. And many continue to be brainwashed by the Republican Brady Bunch.

Imagine that.

[villager]

6. So... you're imagining the NRA hasn't been a faithful GOP tool for decades?

If I understand your jumbled subject header...

[fl410]

7. Not at all. The GOP has played them for fools just like it has done with nearly half of

the American electorate. I think you didn't understand it.

[Segami]

9. Once again, its DEJA VU all over again and the Rovian tactics are starting to see daylight

once again. Boy, do they love pushing those pavlovian buttons while sitting back on their chairs just to watch their mindless tin soldiers ( their white, Christian, gun lobby, corporate gangsters) march on command.

[villager]

12. It's always possible I didn't, but...

I thought "Brady" was a reference to the Brady Campaign on handgun violence...?

[slackmaster]

32. Don't you remember what Jim Brady's job was when he got shot?

Hint: He was shot by the same guy that shot Ronald Reagan.

[villager]

44. Oh, I remember.

But it seems you are as anti-Brady as anti-NRA (?)

Whereas, I rather like the work of the former, and loathe the work of the latter.

[slackmaster]

49. Yes, I am generally anti-Brady

The Brady Act requiring background checks on guns sold by federally licensed dealers is fine with me. Where they lose me is when they start talking about bans on ordinary civilian sporting and self-defense firearms.

[Junkdrawer]

50. "bans on ordinary civilian sporting and self-defense firearms" Such as?

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

51. Go to http://www.thomas.gov and look up HR 1022

It would ban numerous common firearms, including some World War II era curios and relics, like the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine, that are owned by millions of collectors. Also the Ruger Mini 14 and Mini 30 sporting rifles, and many others.

[Junkdrawer]

52. The Assault Weapons Ban....Are those words so hard to use?

And an AR-15 isn't what I'd call an "ordinary civilian sporting and self-defense firearm"

[slackmaster]

53. The AR-15 is the most common rifle used in serious centerfire rifle matches

It's also used for hunting, casual target shooting, and self-defense.

But that's not my point. HR 1022 would be a vast EXPANSION of the expired AW ban with no transfers of grandfathered firearms.

And it would include valuable collectables like the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine. From my perspective, thousands of dollars in assets would suddenly become worth $0.

That's just plain stupid.

[Junkdrawer]

54. I rest my case. n/t

[slackmaster]

56. You have made no effort to understand my position

I'm disappointed in you.

HR 1022 and similar bills threaten to reduce the value of my retirement savings, with no offsetting benefit to public safety.

I cannot allow that to happen.

[Dimensio0]

70. Unless I am mistaken...

...you cannot "rest" a case until you have made one. As you have made no case, you cannot "rest" any case.

Your statement that the AR-15 rifle is not an "ordinary" sporting rifle is demonstrably false. Replying to someone who notes that fact with the statement "I rest my case." does not, in any way, alter the fact that your previous statement is false.

[tburnsten]

73. AR-15s are increasingly popular for target shooting

Because they are reliable and capable of outstanding accuracy, so for many competitions they are rapidly becoming the rifle of choice for the majority of competitors.

I'm sure your "case" rests on the fact that they "look" like a "machine gun" and are "scary" and that is enough of a reason for you to feel they are bad.

[slackmaster]

76. Junkdrawer probably thinks an AR-15 is a machine gun

And "buttstock" refers to a large nude music festival that took place in the late '60s.

:sarcasm:

[tburnsten]

79. Too much Slackmaster!

That's hilarious! You know, I actually know plenty of people, at least one of which who is an active member of the National Guard, who I suspect do not know the difference between semi- and full- automatic weapons. The Guardsmen in particular, when he isn't using the wrong name for the FNH PS-90 that he wants, is usually busy making statements about it that make me suspect he has no idea that a civilian PS-90 is not the same gun as a regular, not available for civilian sale P-90, and that the PS-90 does not fire in full auto mode, ever, under any circumstances, no matter how bad he might want it to.

It's frustrating, and I think this particular poster might be suffering from the same level of ignorance.

[slackmaster]

80. He certainly doesn't show many signs of having an open mind

:eyes:

[derby378]

87. Are you going to let the gun-control movement define your vocabulary for you?

Free your mind.

[benEzra]

161. It's the most common centerfire target rifle in the USA...

and collectively, more Americans own so-called "assault weapons" than hunt.

FWIW, H.R.1022 also bans this rifle by name:



That's a Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, a small-caliber carbine like the AR-15 that is marketed as a farm/utility rifle. It is suitable for hunting small game up to coyote sized, FWIW.

[beevul]

69. Such as anything less than a fully automatic firearm.

Is that so hard to understand?

[villager]

59. Hmm. So I did understand your original post.

plaudits, though, on at least seeing the NRA for what they really are.

[slackmaster]

60. People who advocate unlimited restrictions on firearms made the NRA what it is today

Before about 1968 it rarely engaged in political activity.

[villager]

120. nice talking point -- "the NRA isn't responsible for what it does! *You* are!"

Rove himself would be proud!

[slackmaster]

137. You haven't done jack shit as far as I can tell

Other than blustering on an Internet forum.

[villager]

141. Nice cogent, clearheaded projection-laden response there, Slackmaster

Typically of your NRA-apologizing ilk...

[slackmaster]

142. And I commend you for your prejudiced, ingnorance-rich personal attacks

Typical of you gun-grabbing monkey lovers.

[villager]

144. boy, you're really riled up today -- perhaps some time on the shooting range is in order?

n/t

[slackmaster]

145. I haven't been to a range in about a year, you may be right

Have a great weekend, and try not to be a hater.

:hi:

[villager]

146. "hater?" Have you re-read your last two posts to me lately?

n/t

[slackmaster]

147. Do look at your own posts some time

:hi:

[villager]

149. umm... glass houses?

cheers!

[slackmaster]

150. More like pots and kettles

It's Friday, today is my boss's last day on the job, and I'm ready to go home early.

[villager]

151. We'll let your metaphor stand

Have a good weekend...!

[tburnsten]

159. Wonder why that was?

[krispos42]

39. The NRA has been a faithful pro-gun organization for over a century

And the GOP has been more pro-gun than Democrats for a couple of decades now. Ergo, the NRA is more likely to be on the side of the GOP.


In a similar fashion, the ACLU has been a faithful pro-civil rights organization for decades. And the Democrats have been more pro-civil-rights than Republicans for decades now. Ergo, the ACLU is more likely to be on the side of the Democrats.

[pipoman]

16. Please post citations for this claim.

It may be that NRA get some support from the 'gun industry'. But to claim the NRA to be fully funded by the gun industry is simply not true. There is not one single gun manufacturer who is a Fortune 500 company, in fact it has been demonstrated that if all gun manufacturers in the US which are public companies were added together they still wouldn't make the Fortune list. So many gun control advocates like to pretend that those who oppose gun control do so because they are paid dupes for the gun industry it is laughable. The NRA is strong because millions of people who strongly believe that they have an enumerated right to keep and bear arms have no other advocacy option. If the ACLU and other liberal civil rights groups were doing their job on the 2nd the NRA wouldn't be near the powerhouse they are today. As it stands, if a person desires to join a lobbying group to protect this freedom which they feel very strongly about, whether the person is a Dem or Thug, they really have no choice who they throw their donations to to assure that they are effectively represented.

Those of you who are gun control advocates just keep telling yourself that the NRA is the boogey man financed by big business with no grass roots support. Maybe clicking the heels of your ruby slippers will make it true.

BTW, I am not an NRA member. I have been hoping that the Heller decision in the DC case would bring the ACLU to their senses. So far it hasn't on the national level but last month the Nevada ACLU announced that they agreed with the gist of the Heller decision. Hopefully more state chapters will agree and force the national to change their position. I will hold off sending my money to the NRA until after November hoping that the ACLU changes coarse on this, if not I will send them money. I will send them money because I am a strong believer in RKBA and no other reason.

[baldguy]

19. Thank you for proving his point.

[pipoman]

20. Pretty simplistic

how about addressing my point? Or are you denying that there is a huge contingent of Democratic/Progressive/liberal people who are believers in the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, pro RKBA, responsible gun owners, and believers in an individual right (in fact obligation) for their own self defense?

Tell me what "liberal/Democratic" organization/lobbying group defends the position of those of us who feel the way I do?

[Ezlivin]

115. I'm a Life Member of the NRA

And I don't think I could become any more liberal. I'm also a member of the ACLU.

But there are some non-NRA organizations that support the rights of gun owners. One is Pro-Gun Progressive. Another is the American Hunters & Shooters Association. And finally, there is Gun Owners of America.

[pipoman]

122. Thanks

I like reading PGP site. They are definitely growing.

I disagree with much of AHSA positions and in fact speculated that they are actually an arm of brady with their support of renewal of AWB. Their statement on the 'Who We Are' page sounds like it just dropped out of Scary Brady's mouth:

According to a 2003 Field & Stream National Hunting Survey, sportsmen overwhelmingly support reasonable gun safety proposals. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of hunters support proposals like background checks to purchase guns, keeping military style assault weapons off our streets and the elimination of cop killer bullets.

In recent years, extreme political positions purporting to support gun rights have jeopardized our sport and have hurt the image of responsible gun owners. Unless the sporting community can become unified behind an organization that fights for safe and responsible hunting and shooting practices and sensible gun ownership, future generations may be unable to participate in and enjoy the shooting sports.

GOA has definitely gained traction since their assistance in the NOLA law suits. They don't have near the strength of the NRA (or the ACLU) but I may indeed send them some money now that you mention it.

[krispos42]

33. She was a gun-control advocate before she began working for the NRA, it looks like

Might well be she realized that the gun-control effort was bamboozling the people for the benefit of politicians. Promoting gun control as a solution to a socio-economic problem, therefore conveniently not forcing the corporate-political power structure to actually have to do things that would help the citizens of our cities. After all, if you actually lower incarceration rates, the prison-industrial complex won't make their billions, will they?

If you legalized pot, the pharmaceutical companies won't make their billions, will they?

If you have national single-payer health care, the insurance corporations won't make their billions, will they?

If you have strong unions, the wealthy transnational corporations won't make their trillions, will they?



Gun control is about the appearance of doing something to solve crime problems. It gives politicians and activists a rich vein of controversy to mine for their political and financial benefit. On both sides, as it turns out.

[slackmaster]

36. I'm not an NRA supporter, but they do provide a lot of useful technical information

Very few of the several dozen firearms I own were manufactured after World War II, so gun manufacturers get zero benefit from my hobby.

I do appreciate the efforts of NRA and other organizations in fighting misguided efforts to pass laws that would adversely affect the value of my gun collection.

I do have a vested interest in firearms, but it has nothing to do with the present-day gun industry. The NRA is presently engaged in a ridiculous smear campaign against Barack Obama. That kind of thing is precisely why I don't send them money.

[ensho]

2. and she is one of the tips of the moleberg

that's what neo cons do - invade and occupy. that's what they did to NASA, etc.

[Segami]

5. This has been going on 24/7 for the last 8 years. Time to purge these pricks.

[Swede]

8. "confirm for me the way that the gun lobby works, which is no rules, no question of fairness

The McFate operation, says Miller, "would confirm for me the way that the gun lobby works, which is no rules, no question of fairness or honesty. Anything that they can do they will do to protect the profits of the gun industry." He notes that his organization has experienced low-level attempts at penetration in the past—a pro-gun advocate once posed as a would-be volunteer to get on his group's mailing list—but nothing on this scale.

[beevul]

61. Ahh, Mr. Miller...

A voice from the grave...

Mr. Miller...no longer with us...



What would mrbenchl...err I mean I mean Bob Boudelang say...

[-..__...]

83. "Cry me a river!"

:evilgrin:

[beevul]

85. What a PANTLOAD!!!

Who you tryin to kid D__S!?!?!?

:evilgrin:

[Irreverend IX]

88. What a joke...

If the gun-ban organizations are so honest, how come Handgun Control Incorporated changed its name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence? Why did Josh Sugarmann, by his own admission, coin the term "assault weapon" in order to create confusion between semiautomatic civilian firearms and fully-automatic military firearms in the eyes of the public? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Kolesar]

10. Mary was an "agent provocateur" in the animal rights movement

In an earlier time. I guess the NRA paid better so she switched campaigns.

[Segami]

11. I wonder what her next ' mission ' will be and who'll foot the bill? It would seem that you can't

even trust your neighbors these days. Talk about a fascist state full of paid snitches.

[Hekate]

13. With any luck her face will be plastered on every progressive group's meeting room bulletin board

... throughout the country.

How can such a person even sleep at night?

Hekate

[Hekate]

14. My gods, she convinced an animal-rights activist to plant a pipe bomb

From the article:
"Sapone's earliest known private intelligence operation occurred in the mid-1980s, when she served as an operative for Perceptions International, a Connecticut-based security firm. Working for Perceptions, which has since been shuttered, she infiltrated the animal rights community for US Surgical Corporation, a target of activists who objected to its testing on dogs. According to a 1989 article in New England Business, Sapone appeared on the animal rights scene in 1986 and quickly became "involved in at least a half dozen animal rights groups." She "made a point of getting to know all of the key people in the movement," and "traveled around the country to most protests, meetings and conferences." At meetings, activists would later say, Sapone advocated taking illegal or violent action to advance the movement. She befriended a 33-year-old activist named Fran Trutt, who in November 1988 would be arrested for planting a remote-controlled pipe bomb near the parking space of US Surgical chairman Leon Hirsch. According to Trutt, on her way to carry out the bombing she lost her nerve and placed a call to Sapone, who convinced her to follow through with the plan—a fact that prompted activists to accuse Sapone of acting as an agent provocateur. (Another Perceptions International operative, Marcus Mead, drove Trutt to US Surgical on the day of the attempted bombing.)"


:wtf: :wow:

[Nevernose]

15. Like the FBI/CIA in the 60s

Supposedly, you could always tell who the government agents were, because they were usually the most agitated and most prone to violence. Agents provocateurs.

When you can't even tell the difference between the CIA and Megacorps, Inc. anymore, it brings a whole new meaning to "corporate masters."

[tburnsten]

62. That is fucked up

Entrapment schemes like that, while they certainly ensure that people like Sapone will have opponents so she can keep working, should land everyone involved squarely in prison. At least as harsh a penalty, if not more so, than for the person they convinced to try and harm others like that.

[Tejas]

17. Do the math

NRA boasts of 4 million members......vs 80 million gunowners in this country.

Now what's all this crap about how the big-bad-NRA "runs" the Gungeon and every other firearms website on the face of the earth?

[-..__...]

18. I see nothing wrong with her actions.

Vile groups like the Brady Campaign, VPC, Million Mom March, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, etc need to be closely watched and taken down.

Her involvement in infiltrating anti-RKBA groups is as admirable as someone whom penetrates and reports on the activities of the KKK, Aryan Nations, Operation Rescue, Family First, etc.

[Junkdrawer]

21. Wow. Just wow....

:wow:

It must really suck to to be you.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

42. May I second that "wow"?

Sadly, there are some sick fucks here. :(

[tburnsten]

107. There certainly are

There are some people who would gladly see our bill of rights reduced to a salad bar, and they don't even pretend otherwise!

[truebrit71]

114. Let me second your second...

..."sick fucks" is right...

[alarimer]

22. That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

Go fondle your guns. You are pretty sick.

[baldguy]

23. You forgot the :sarcasm: tag

[Blue_Tires]

24. the first three groups you mentioned have a history of murders and bombings

and i know you hate the gun control folks, but to lump them in with that crowd is absurd...

[-..__...]

25. True...

the first 3 examples have a history of violence (and thereby putting ones life at risk if you mess around with them).

However... what all the groups mentioned have in common is an agenda and policy of depriving citizens of at least one of thier Constitutional rights.

In that regard Brady, et al, is just as loathsome as any hate group or bunch of religious zealots.

[baldguy]

26. And the NRA is spying on their political opposition

depriving them of their freedom to associate, freedom to assemble, freedom to have differing political opinions without being harassed. You don't find that the least bit troubling?

What do you think would happen to a liberal mole in a RW group like the NRA? Would such a spy have a reasonable fear for the safety of his life & property? You know he would. Do you think Ms Sapone has similar fears?

The fact is infiltrating the opposition is a tactic for fascists. The NRA is showing its true colors, and they're not on the side of freedom.

[fascisthunter]

40. they never were on the side of Freedom

gun sales

[tburnsten]

64. Umm, NRA is not a government agency

so the statement of

" depriving them of their freedom to associate, freedom to assemble, freedom to have differing political opinions without being harassed. You don't find that the least bit troubling? "

doesn't really pan out. Private organizations can spy on other private organizations more or less all they want, unless someone's business is at stake because of it. Is it wrong? Yes. Is it illegal, or depriving them of freedoms? Absolutely not. Groups of volunteers and public advocacy groups probably all have people watching them closely, but that's ok, because their job and their goal is to get their messages out. Can't get your message out if you barricade yourself in a basement somewhere so the satellites can't read your thought waves can you?

[-..__...]

81. There's a saying...

keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. The anti-slavery movement deprived citizens of one of their constitutional rights.

Just because the law currently guarantees a right, doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with campaigning to change that law.

The right to own guns is a bad right, that people *should* be deprived of, because it leads to tens of thousands of needless deaths a year for very little benefit; the 2nd ammendment should be repealed, and the US should institute UK-style gun control on a federal level.

[pipoman]

123. You do realize your beliefs are in the

extreme minority in the US, right?

[michreject]

28. Every one of those sites

and especially "The Gun Guys" tell so many bullshit lies that they should be in jail. There oughta be a law.

[fascisthunter]

38. I'm Not Surprised You'd Feel That Way Considering you have

a Hello Kitty holding a gun. Time to take the meds....

[slackmaster]

41. "Time to take the meds...."?!?!?!

What an asinine thing to say to a fellow DUer. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[-..__...]

82. No sweat off my balls.

That particular comment was one of the funniest things I've read all day.

[derby378]

90. Chill...

I'm wearing a T-shirt with KalashniKitty on it right now.

Any personal insults you want to hurl at D__S, you hurl them at me, instead. I'm used to it. But leave D__S the hell alone, already.

[beevul]

67. Sentiments I agree with.

Vile groups like the Brady Campaign, VPC, Million Mom March, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, etc need to be closely watched and taken down.

Her involvement in infiltrating anti-RKBA groups is as admirable as someone whom penetrates and reports on the activities of the KKK, Aryan Nations, Operation Rescue, Family First, etc.

Yep. Same bad seeds with a different name, agenda, and face.

[old mark]

27. Mother Jones is FOS.

The Republican - led Brady gun confiscation group is all about money and power. I am amazed that there is no one at that publication who is not taken in by the lies of the gun confiscating groups who claim to be "progressive" when they are in fact fascist in nature.

More lies from the group that lives by lies.


mark

[truebrit71]

43. Wow...now isn't that a steaming pile of horsehit...

... :eyes:

[beevul]

66. Which part isn't true?

Republican led? Thats true. Their leader helmke IS a republican, and so are jim and sara brady.

Brady gun confiscation group? Well...they want to ban all sorts of stuff, or at least DID want to ban stuff...they briefed on the side of DC versus Heller, in support of a ban, and anyone who violated said ban had their weapon confiscated and were prosecuted. I'd say thats close enough.

Was it some other part of what that poster said that you disagree with?

[truebrit71]

91. Banning handguns is NOT a progressive trait anymore?

Mother Jones is FOS?

Really?

Okee-dokee...

[tburnsten]

92. What is "progressive" about banning handguns?

What is the point?

[derby378]

93. Outlawing handguns is SO not progressive...

It's freedom, baby. That's how we roll.

[fascisthunter]

94. surrrrre

what ever you say

[derby378]

95. Sooner or later, you'll have to make a choice...

Do you want Obama in the White House, backed by a Democratic Congress? Or do you want more draconian gun-control laws on the books?

The tide has turned. Third Way doesn't own the Second Amendment. We do. But that doesn't mean we can't work together to craft some anti-gun-violence legislation that all of us can live with.

[beevul]

97. Way to not address anything I said.

I'll ask again - Which part isn't true?

Republican led? Thats true. Their leader helmke IS a republican, and so are jim and sara brady.

Brady gun confiscation group? Well...they want to ban all sorts of stuff, or at least DID want to ban stuff...they briefed on the side of DC versus Heller, in support of a ban, and anyone who violated said ban had their weapon confiscated and were prosecuted. I'd say thats close enough.

Was it some other part of what that poster said that you disagree with?

[truebrit71]

103. Re-read my answer...

...It addresses everything I said in the first place...That Mother Jones is NOT in fact full of shit, and that gun control is most DEFINITELY a progressive issue...

[beevul]

106. I read it several times..

I agree it adresses everything you said in the first place. That is not in question. You however did NOT address anything I said. Which is fine I guess...adressing everything you yourself say in another post while replying to someone else is a spectacular way to look like your replying to someone else whilst really having a conversation mostly with yourself. If thats your definition of a discussion...well whatever turns your crank I guess.

As to gun control being a progressive issue...perhaps it is, but as so many gun control advocates continually keep telling everyone...gun control and gun BANS are two different things.

Gun BANNING is no progressive issue at all, and in fact is generally a civil rights violation. See the Heller versus DC decision for details. Oh, and keep in mind, that even the dissenting opinions said the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, so don't bother attempting any of that "right wing court decision" business.

[truebrit71]

112. Civil rights violation? Not so much...

ALL handguns, and ALL semi-automatic guns should be banned. The 2nd amendment is an anocronysm that is in DESPERATE need of review and replacement...

Old mark (the OP) said that Mother Jones was full of shit, clearly a horsehit statement in itself, as pointed out by me, and gun control is a progressive issue, hence the other part of his post was also a steaming pile of horseshit...

I personally have never had to affirm my manhood by owning a penis-extension, or to prove myself by killing innocent animals...

[beevul]

118. I have some news for you.

In case you have been living under a rock, the second amendment WAS just reviewed. Your side lost.

"ALL handguns, and ALL semi-automatic guns should be banned."

This isn't England, and it never will be.

The SCOTUS just ruled the the right to keep and bear arms IS a constitutionally protected INDIVIDUAL right - even the dissenters. So yeah, gun bans are essentially civil rights violations.

Deal with it.

"I personally have never had to affirm my manhood by owning a penis-extension, or to prove myself by killing innocent animals..."

Neither have I, though coyotes that try to eat my pomeranians are hardly innocent...though you stating that does clear some things up about your position, and how you view people that believe their rights to own firearms are important.

[tburnsten]

128. You claim gun-control is a progressive issue

But I don't see you doing anything other than claiming it.

And seeing how "brits" are up to their necks in non-firearm violence right now, I see no reason to follow their lead.




And I like hooded sweatshirts, I won't be turning those in anytime soon either.

[krispos42]

134. It might be one

It also might be a trait that needs rethinking.

[WhollyHeretic]

46. Yes this woman who has infiltrated and promoted violence in activist groups is the real hero here.

Her and the Repug lapdog NRA.

[wvbygod]

29. Why would gun control groups have any secrets to keep from us?

If they want to disarm legal law abiding citizens then they need to be up front about
any and all activities to complete their goal. If their cause is noble then they have
nothing to hide from those that wish to defend themselves.

[Junkdrawer]

30. Whoa. That amount of spin will make you nauseous...

It does me..

:puke:

[fascisthunter]

34. it's pretty funny actually

yes, in a sick way

[tburnsten]

68. I'm in the same boat

If a public policy group wants to advocate it's positions, why on earth would they mind if some of their opposition came along so they could get their message out more? If they actually had any faith in their own position being the right one, they wouldn't care who hangs out with them, if they have some ulterior motive or like to have little sessions where they cook up outright lies to try and further their cause, than yes I can understand why they might not want to have any non-believers present.

[krispos42]

35. Interesting article.

I wonder how many agents and informants the anti-gun groups have in organizations like the NRA.

[gratuitous]

37. Just a bunch of law-abiding citizens

Who find it necessary to lie, cheat, steal and dupe people in furtherance of their aims and to defend their own warped view of the Second Amendment. But I suppose someone who needs guns should hardly cavil at lying. And from the story, old Mary doesn't seem to be particularly anxious to explain her side of things. I wonder why not?

[tburnsten]

71. I agree wholeheartedly

"Who find it necessary to lie, cheat, steal and dupe people in furtherance of their aims and to defend their own warped view of the Second Amendment."

The Brady Campaign, Handgun Control Incorporated, and the Violence Prevention Center (whose top leader is the sole Federal Firearms License holder in Washington, D.C., kind of odd for someone who feels that citizens owning guns is bad isn't it?) really do go out of their way to lie and dupe people into believing that their positions on the subject of firearms are anything but ridiculously false.

Can a .50 caliber rifle shoot down an airliner? According to the Brady Campaign, it absolutely can. According to anyone who has ever fired any kind of rifle before, that is patently ridiculous. Mythbusters even did a show on it. Verdict? A half-inch hole or even a few of them in an aircraft's skin is not nearly enough to cause decompression.

[Junkdrawer]

84. At first I thought "Well, wonder how many Marys post here?". But...

the sensible responses of our resident, ahem, Gun Rights Advocates prove that my concerns were misplaced.


Oh, and yes, :sarcasm:

[beevul]

89. On sensibility...

Bounch your sensibility against this so we can see where it lands:

Where was your sensibility when:

The brady bunch went on their "50 caliber terror" tear? You know...misleading the world with reports of the 50 caliber non-automatic rifle that could "shoot down an airliner". Where was your sensibility? Did you with your sensibility EVER try to set things strait? Did you with your sensibility ever bother to tell them to stop with the lies?

The brady bunch and their scummy little allies went on their little crusade against scary looking semi-automatic rifles? Where were you with your sensibility when someone bought their mischaracterizations and thought that machineguns were the issue? Where were you with your sensibility when the brady bunch said that these were the choice of criminals and gang bangers over all other firearms in spite of the FACT that those weapons account to this very day for less deaths than hands and feet - in fact used less in crime than ordinary shotguns - where were you with your sensibility?


lacking some forthright and specific answers, you haven't much of a leg to stand on where sensible or sensibility is concerned on this issue.

[Junkdrawer]

96. How silly of me...what deer hunter leaves his home without 50 caliber bullets....

And what's REALLY funny is that you gunners spend so much time arguing among yourselves that you just can't see why average folks are aghast at your ideas.

[beevul]

98. What does deer hunting have to do with it?

How about addressing the things I wrote in the post you replied to.

Ya know, giving some of those forthright and specific answers I asked you for.


If your position IS defensible and capable of withstanding the scrutiny of logic and sensibility, that shouldn't be a problem, right?

[WhollyHeretic]

45. I can't believe there are people on this thread that are defending this woman

This woman is a professional corporate agent who should has infiltrated liberal groups and promoted violence.

[Junkdrawer]

47. Yes. But you probably don't live in perpetual fear that *someone*...

will take your guns away and leave you naked to face the world without your "little friends".

[tburnsten]

74. What is liberal about gun bans?

Isn't liberalism founded on the idea that people have a right to choose their own lifestyles and protecting ALL civil rights, regardless of how vocal the opposition to it is?

She is detestable, but don't call the Brady Campaign's work "liberal". They are an organization that only exists to self-perpetuate and keep it's members employed.

[Kolesar]

100. Brady Campaign's an organization that only exists to self-perpetuate - Bollocks

[slackmaster]

78. The article doesn't say anything about her promoting violence

She's just a corporate spy.

Did she commit a crime?

[WhollyHeretic]

127. So I guess you didn't actually read the article. Just spouting NRA talking points...

"Sapone's earliest known private intelligence operation occurred in the mid-1980s, when she served as an operative for Perceptions International, a Connecticut-based security firm. Working for Perceptions, which has since been shuttered, she infiltrated the animal rights community for US Surgical Corporation, a target of activists who objected to its testing on dogs. According to a 1989 article in New England Business, Sapone appeared on the animal rights scene in 1986 and quickly became "involved in at least a half dozen animal rights groups." She "made a point of getting to know all of the key people in the movement," and "traveled around the country to most protests, meetings and conferences." At meetings, activists would later say, Sapone advocated taking illegal or violent action to advance the movement. She befriended a 33-year-old activist named Fran Trutt, who in November 1988 would be arrested for planting a remote-controlled pipe bomb near the parking space of US Surgical chairman Leon Hirsch. According to Trutt, on her way to carry out the bombing she lost her nerve and placed a call to Sapone, who convinced her to follow through with the plan—a fact that prompted activists to accuse Sapone of acting as an agent provocateur. (Another Perceptions International operative, Marcus Mead, drove Trutt to US Surgical on the day of the attempted bombing.)"

That is a quote right from the article.

[slackmaster]

136. Yes, I missed that part, thanks

So, why wasn't she in prison for those previous activities?

[gorfle]

48. Good.

Anti-firearm groups are a threat to a fundamental Constitutionally enumerated right.

I'm all for any and all legal means to defeat such organizations, including subversion.

[baldguy]

55. Free speech is a fundamental Constitutionally enumerated right.

Freedom of assembly is a fundamental Constitutionally enumerated right. Spying threatens them.

Would you have the same opinion if the situation was reversed?

[tburnsten]

75. Isn't government spying bub.

If a citizen's group for a policy change wants to have meetings, than any non-disruptive citizen who wants to join and see what's going on has a right to be there. If they weren't a policy organization, maybe that statement would have a leg to stand on, but it wasn't the goverment spying on them, and if they want to have super-secret meetings that are open to the public, tough shit, that's impossible.

[gorfle]

158. Sure!

Spying, or rather, listening, to free speech doesn't limit the speech.

[virginia mountainman]

57. How to put a stop to a MMM/Brady/VPC meeting

In light of the successful mole within the upper echelons of the republican filled anti-civil rights Gun Control moment. Some light needs to be shown on how secretive these “anti-civil” rights groups operate, and how they wish, to infringe on OTHER rights, like the the 1st Amendment.

Question: What is the fastest way, to break up a meeting of MMM/Brady/VPC

Answer: Show up to a meeting with a camera.

A group of Million Mom Marchers in Virginia, decided to hold their meeting in a PUBLIC library. As such, being in a public library, a civil rights advocate went to record it, but that upset the MMM'ers and they completely freaked out, and canceled the meeting.. By part 3 of the Video, they are getting soundly defeated in their debating with the cameraman.

If they have nothing to hide, why hide??


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAsyrBTvN2g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc8uXTfpdHM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CnDvnPFzL0&feature=related

[baldguy]

58. And expose them as targets to the gun freaks.

[beevul]

63. Terrible thing...

To be the target of a camera in public...especially if you don't want the general public to know about the scummy dishonest ways you intend to use to attempt to implement your agenda.

[truebrit71]

104. Yeah like banning lethal weapons...

..what a TERRIBLE shame that would be.... :eyes:

[krispos42]

133. Yeah, because it would save lives, right?

I like seeing how the assault weapon ban and confiscation of 1989 and the handgun ban and confisctation of 1998 really lowered those UK homicide rates.

[truebrit71]

135. Question for you...when was the Brady Bill first enacted?

Does it correlate with anything on your graph?

So, the Brits consistently kill fewer fellow Brits than the Yanks do to their countrymen?

You haven't factored in the fact that proper, highly restrictive gun control has ALWAYS been in place in the UK....hence the significantly lower homicide rate overall....

[krispos42]

139. 1993, taking effect in 1994. Some elements expired in 2004.

This was also the same time frame that the economy improved and grew in a pretty dramatic fashion, many states such as California instituted 3-strikes-and-you're-out sentencing for repeat offenders (who commit the bulk of crimes), and Clinton and Congress passed the COPS program, which ultimately put about 50,000 federally-funded police officers on our city streets.

Parts of the Brady Bill, such as the instant background checks, I support. Other things, such as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, I don't support and are glad are gone.


Now we can flip the question to you: over the past 40 years the UK's homicide rate has doubled. Is there any legislation that would corrospond to that increase? More specifically, I'm thinking of the 4.4 million police-monitored public-area surveillence cameras all over the UK and the license-plate tracking cameras all over urban areas that produce databases of automotive movements. The general idea was that all those cameras would, you know, reduce crime and all that.

You haven't factored in the fact that proper, highly restrictive gun control has ALWAYS been in place in the UK....hence the significantly lower homicide rate overall....

The argument for strict gun control here in the US is that a) it would keep flaring tempers from turning homicidal because of a lack of easy access to firearms, and b) it would dramatically reduce the guns availble for a criminal to steal and then use in crime.

As you point out, the UK has had strict controls for decades. I believe they date from the 1920's when Parliment and the Royals were concerned about a communist, socialist, or fascist uprising and takeover in GB. However, the 1998 ban and confiscation of handguns, which are the criminal favorite for commited violent crimes, should have had the effect of reducing the guns in the hands of criminals and thus reducing violent crimes. And so far, that hasn't happened.











What has happend is the gun deaths in the UK are at historic lows while simulatiously total homicides are at historic highs.

In other words, the end result is the same as if you banned blue-painted cars in the UK: a dramatic drop in blue-car-related traffic fatalities and injuries.

[truebrit71]

140. "Is there any legislation that would correspond to that increase? "..I can honestly say I don't know

...There are alot more people in the UK now than 40 years ago...?? The whole CCTV argument was a load of bollocks from the start, and as you rightly point out has done very little (if anything) to curb crime...just crime where there are cameras...

I think society in the UK as a whole is more violent (tv/movie influence maybe)...and for a long period of time there was Thatcherism (may she rot in hell) and there is a whole class of people deeply affected by her fucked up policies...Did that lead to a lack of tolerance and on increase in violence? Buggered if I know...but I will tell you this...I feel a damned sight safer walking around England then I do in the US...

Interesting that the time-frame of the Brady-Bill seems to match a fairly big drop in homicides in the US, no?

[krispos42]

152. It's per-capita, not absolute

the homicide rate graph is. The graphs about firearms used in robberies and assaults, though, are in straight numbers, not adjusted for population.

Interesting that the time-frame of the Brady-Bill seems to match a fairly big drop in homicides in the US, no?

It may be. The Brady Bill is actually a background check law that originally mandated a waiting period for buying handguns. Later it was turned into an instant background check for all firearm purchases from a dealer.

This is something that I support, and in fact I've actually proposed an idea where every person that gets a gov't issued ID like a driver's license automatically goes through a background check. If a person was cleared for buying a gun, it would be marked on a corner of the driver's license so that ALL firearm sales, both dealer and private, could be checked by simply looking at the license. If your right to buy a gun was taken away by due process, the police or a judge could simply grab a pair of scissors and snip that corner off.

But I digress.

During a similar period, the 1993 Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect, which was a total wash because it banned dealer sales of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, or pistols with certain arbitrary combinations of arbitrary features that, basically, looked scary. Simply juggling the combinations of arbitrary features made such guns legal for sale. There was a ban on magazine capacities of more than 10 rounds as well, but there were so many old magazines floating around that were made before the cut-off date that is was also essentially useless.

As I noted before there were also good economic times, 3-strikes-and-you're-out laws, and extra 50,000 cops on the streets, and one thing that I forgot...


Expanded concealed-carry licensing.




:-)



I would also note that the increase in US homicides corrosponded with the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act, itself passed after JFK and others were assassinated. :-)

[virginia mountainman]

65. LOL, bullshit...

That does not stop them from getting on the TV at every opportunity..

LOL, make them targets...ROFLMAO!!!

[Kolesar]

101. They have a right to ban cameras at their meetings you moron

[beevul]

102. Uh...

They have no reasonable expectation of privacy if they hold their meetings in a public library and advertise them as "open to the public" so no, they DON'T have a right to ban cameras at their meetings.

If they hold them at a private place, that would change, but then, so would their status as a non-profit.

[Kolesar]

124. You must be incredibly bored. I could think of all kinds of better things to do on a summer day

[virginia mountainman]

125. Yea..

Like filmmng MMM/VPC/Brady meetings and putting the footage on the internet whether they like or not.

or, hatching narfarios plans to take my old farm truck to the next "LIE-in" that they have, and causing it to backfire loudly while they are laying on the ground, singing "We shall overcome" LOL Might even scare the "republican' right out of'em!

The anti-civil right crowd has exceptionaly poor singing voices I might add..

Or target shooting with the kids....

Or Loading up another batch of handloaded ammunition for my military surplus rifles....

Or spreading the good word about the rights we have in this nation..

[beevul]

155. Why would what I wrote lead you to believe I'm bored?

Me, I just have a certain disdain for inaccuracy and incorrect information, its dissemination, and the people that disseminate it.

It leads me to do things like correct people when they're wrong and telling others things that are just plain incorrect.

The world would be a better place if more people would correct the incorrect...just like the policeman that tried to take the guys cell phone away because he took pictures of the cop - no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Of course, since this is about guns, some people think things ought to be treated differently...oddly enough.



On edit: I'm going to a cook-out later, and I intend to have a good weekend. I hope you have a good weekend too.

[Dimensio0]

72. Are you saying that anti-gun activists experience irrational paranoia?

[fascisthunter]

111. I would Say that Was True of Militant Gun Nuts Pushing the NRA Agenda (RW)

Not the folks who want to regulate gun ownership and live in a safer gun free society. There are plenty of examples out there of those types losing it (UU Church in Tenn.) and blowing folks away. There are thousands of folks dying in the US from guns. Not much is really to be feared when it comes to what you consider a "gun grabber" unless your life was dependent on that gun.

Actually, when you come to think of it, anyone that needs to push guns on society or needs to own one as much as many seem to here, should be somewhat feared... they are psychologically unstable. Why be against regulation of guns and need one so so bad that any and all legislation that regulates gun ownership is considered banning them? It's completely irrational and irresponsible to society itself. What good is your right if it endangers society???

I know plenty who own guns, and they also support gun regulation. That's why I know for a FACT, most of you are full of shit and trying to pollute DU with gun advocacy the likes that the NRA promotes, which is bogus and has nothing to do with Freedom. Saying so is just a way to market deregulation of gun sales or to parrot the right wing anti-progressive meme that all regulation on guns is bad.

Interesting how this right wing Supreme court after how many years perverts the Constitution in favor of gun sales. I suppose you think they are Progressive...lol. It's not a Progressive issue and anyone saying so is a liar. There was middle ground, but gun nuts don't seem interested because their agenda is extreme, hence the actions taken by an NRA mole.

Check mate.

[tburnsten]

117. "who own guns, and they also support gun regulation."

Well it depends on your definition of "regulation". If you mean total bans on citizen's right to protect themselves in the unfortunate event of an attack on them, than yes, most all of us "gun advocates" are anti-regulation. If you mean a logical, non-arbitrary step such as the form 4473 and NICS background check on anyone purchasing a gun, then you are wrong, I don't think anyone of us "gun advocates" disagrees that those are some excellent measures to help prevent people with felonies and domestic abuse records from buying guns.

[krispos42]

138. A safer society and a gun-free society do not necessary go hand-in-hand

California, which if memory serves is your posting location, has had virtually every gun-control measures that Californians wanted passed. California has about 120,000 words in it's gun laws, over twice as many as the second-place state, New York.

The control is there, the social distaste of guns is there, and gun ownership in California is probably on the low end of the spectrum, although that's just speculation on my part. But the crime problem remains!

Actually, when you come to think of it, anyone that needs to push guns on society or needs to own one as much as many seem to here, should be somewhat feared... they are psychologically unstable. Why be against regulation of guns and need one so so bad that any and all legislation that regulates gun ownership is considered banning them? It's completely irrational and irresponsible to society itself. What good is your right if it endangers society???

This entire paragraph concerns me, frankly. The arguments you make here are of the same style and substance as the reichwing Republicans currently running things.

"Actually, when you come to think of it, anyone that needs to push privacy on society or needs to have it as much as many seem to here, should be somewhat feared... they are psychologically unstable. Why be against regulation of privacy and need it so so bad that any and all legislation that regulates privacy is considered intrusive? It's completely irrational and irresponsible to society itself. What good is your right if it endangers society???"

"Actually, when you come to think of it, anyone that needs to push habeas corpus on society or needs to have it as much as many seem to here, should be somewhat feared... they are psychologically unstable. Why be against regulation of habeas corpus and need it so so bad that any and all legislation that regulates habeas corpus is considered unconstitutional? It's completely irrational and irresponsible to society itself. What good is your right if it endangers society???"

"Actually, when you come to think of it, anyone that needs to push legal representation on society or needs to have it as much as many seem to here, should be somewhat feared... they are psychologically unstable. Why be against regulation of legal representation and need it so so bad that any and all legislation that regulates legal representation is considered unconstitutional? It's completely irrational and irresponsible to society itself. What good is your right if it endangers society???"



If your goal is to reduce crime and homicide rates, then we, America, must throw out the corportist Republicans and go back to our traditional progressive, New Deal and Great Society roots. But we can't do that if we're not elected. Trying to solve the problems by banning hardware is doomed to failure because a) it inheirently will not work, and b) it keeps putting Republicans in office.

[Paladin]

110. The Gun Control Movement Is Not "republican filled."

Anybody who's stupid enough to believe that is too stupid to be trusted with firearms.

While the Bradys do have a Republican background themselves, their organization promotes the sort of gun policies that the Republican Party and the gun militancy movement in this country despise. I'm confident that there are only a small number of Republicans in the Brady group's membership. Hence the poll down in the DU Gungeon right now, with 44% of the respondents saying they'll cross over and vote Republican this time around.

And as far as the "why hide" question, why don't you put down that American Rifleman magazine and look at the front page of your local paper. Lots of nutcases with guns, killing people who don't share their viewpoints. "Civil rights advocate," my ass.....

[beevul]

119. But it IS republican led.

But it IS republican led.

Theres no disputing that.


"Lots of nutcases with guns, killing people who don't share their viewpoints."

Thats only relivent to the discussion if the people killing the other people with different viewpoints are doing so BECAUSE of those different viewpoints.

Can you show lots of examples where thats the case? Lots being say 2 dozen separate events?

"Hence the poll down in the DU Gungeon right now, with 44% of the respondents saying they'll cross over and vote Republican this time around."

Thats a misrepresentation of the poll, Paladin. You're better than that.

[Paladin]

148. That Is Most Certainly NOT A Misrepresentation Of That Poll

If you've got another way of interpreting it, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Oh, and while you're at it, try putting a favorable spin on those 3% of the poll respondents who intend on staying at home on election day to "spite the Dems."

And by the way---I've mentioned that poll a good dozen times up here in the Real World forums, for weeks and weeks now, and neither you nor any of the rest of your fellow gun militants have responded in any way, until now. I wonder why that is. You guys really fucked up, putting your honest feelings on display like that......

[beevul]

153. Love to hear it? Allow me. This is how its a misrepresentation.

You said that "Hence the poll down in the DU Gungeon right now, with 44% of the respondents saying they'll cross over and vote Republican this time around."

The poll question is:

"If the choice was between a gun loving repuke, or a Dem nominee that was advocating much stricter gun control, how would you choose?"


You stated that "Hence the poll down in the DU Gungeon right now, with 44% of the respondents saying they'll cross over and vote Republican this time around", which IS a misrepresentation since A) the choice this time around is NOT one of "a gun loving repuke, or a Dem nominee that was advocating much stricter gun control", and B) Obama has said that he supports the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and supports the Heller Decision, and finally C) Nobody said they'll cross over and vote Republican this time around - without "IF" attatched to it.

It is therefore a misrepresentation, in at least 3 different ways.

Like I said, you're better than that. You aren't showing it doing this, but I have seen it, and know you are.

[beevul]

77. All you objectors...

All you objectors - that is you who object to what this woman did in infiltrating the anti-gun groups (I agree that what she did in inciding violence and the planting of bombs is wrong), I have questions for you.

You all object to what this woman did, but where were you when:

The brady bunch went on their "50 caliber terror" tear? You know...misleading the world with reports of the 50 caliber non-automatic rifle that could "shoot down an airliner". Where were you? Did any of you who object EVER try to set things strait? Did any of you ever bother to tell them to stop with the lies?

The brady bunch and their scummy little allies went on their little crusade against scary looking semi-automatic rifles? Where were you when someone bought their mischaracterizations and thought that machineguns were the issue? Where were you when the brady bunch said that these were the choice of criminals and gang bangers over all other firearms in spite of the FACT that those weapons account to this very day for less deaths than hands and feet?

If you tried in vain to correct these outright lies and misconstructions and misrepresentations of reality, then fine, you have every right to complain. I suspect that not a one of you did.

If you didn't, what did you think would eventually happen?

If you didn't, is it really such a surprise to you that the leading organization on the other side of the issue wanted to know what outright lie would be part of the next dishonest strategy from brady et al?



Taking everything into context, what the hell did you who are so outraged expect?

[truebrit71]

105. Um. someone from a gun-lobby infiltrates an anti-gun group to better aid her sponsors..

...whilst PRETENDING to be a passionate believer in gun-control....and you have NO problem with that?

So, in YOUR world, a person on the payroll of say, Big Oil, could go undercover at say, a GreenPeace meeting, and then run back to Big Oil and let them know everything that was discussed so that Big Oil would be better positioned to defend themselves...

Nice values pal....

[tburnsten]

108. And it works the other way as well

This sort of thing happens every day, it isn't that big a deal, Brady Campaign/HCI meetings are not classified, they are not talking about nuclear technology, they are not undercover law enforcement or intelligence officials. Why does it matter if someone at their meetings doesn't follow their beliefs? can't get the word out by being secretive.

[beevul]

109. How odd.

How odd, that you do not address one single thing I said in the post to which you replied. One is supposed to address the comments made by the person they're replying to, in a discussion, just so were clear on that.

I'll address yours, right after you address mine - since mine was the original post you were replying to without addressing. Thats how discussions work.

If you want to discuss this, then by all means address the things I said.

If not, by all means make another post the avoids completely everything I originally said.

[truebrit71]

113. How odd, I have exposed your republican thought process and you obfuscate instead...

...another republican trait...

The OUTRAGE here is due to the fact that a gun-lobbyist dishonestly mis-represented themselves in order to gain intel for their master from a gun-control group...

THAT is the issue...the fact that you dislike the concept of gun-control is glaringly obvious to one and all....

[beevul]

116. My republican thought process?

What would I have to gain if I were a republican, by trying to get the Democratic party to be more accepting of gun owners? Can't answer that, can you.


You can say anything is about anything you like. What you can't seem to do, is address the things I wrote in the original post YOU replied to without addressing. Why is that?

"the fact that you dislike the concept of gun-control is glaringly obvious to one and all"

Not so fast bub. What *I* dislike, is the dishonesty of trying to cloak the malfeasance of "gun banning" under the innocuous term "gun control". What *I* dislike, is people that can not address simple question asked and not answered in response to those questions by people that try to cloak the malfeasance of "gun banning" under the innocuous term "gun control".

As for not liking the concept of gun control, I guess supporting instant background checks on retail firearm sales and supporting prohibitions against firearm possession by violent mentally ill and felons just doesn't count...well, to people that try to cloak the malfeasance of "gun banning" under the innocuous term "gun control", apparently.

[truebrit71]

130. Gun-nuts bore me...

...welcome to ignore...

[beevul]

154. Gosh...I'm...flattered?

I wish everyone who refused to address the things I say, and/or couldn't debate the way debate is supposed to work...would put me on ignore.

On second though, I am SO disapointed that someone SO mainstream...

"ALL handguns, and ALL semi-automatic guns should be banned. The 2nd amendment is an anocronysm that is in DESPERATE need of review and replacement..." - truebrit71
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3702535&mesg_id=3710785


has put me who is SO extremist...

"I guess supporting instant background checks on retail firearm sales and supporting prohibitions against firearm possession by violent mentally ill and felons just doesn't count" - Beevul
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3702535&mesg_id=3710871

on ignore.

I'm hearbroken ladies and gentlemen. :eyes: :sarcasm:

[old mark]

131. truebrit, are you another canadian?

I find that many of the most vocal anti-gun folks on the Guns forum seem to be canadians who feel they have a right to direct things in the US as well as their own country.

Just curious. I am not a gun dealer nor an NRA member, and I am a 3rd generation Democrat and a gun owner with a license to carry a firearm.

Have a great day.

mark

[truebrit71]

132. Nope.

A Brit that has lived in the US for half of my life...

[tburnsten]

86. Basic Corporate Espionage

:boring:

[NoSheep]

99. Enemy combatant.

[Runcible Spoon]

121. This thread made me feel like I should go get a gun.

Some scary shit out in the world today (and on this thread).

*on edit: are there any progressive gun companies I can get one from? I DO agree the NRA is largely a corporate lobby and I want my semi-paranoid self-defense dollars to not go to repukes and DINOs.

[Blue_Tires]

126. i think there are a few licensed dealers on DU somewhere

go down to the gun forum and see if there is one in your state...DUers like jody, slackmaster, derby378 can at least point you in the right direction, i think...

[tburnsten]

129. Most companies are non-partisan

I can't think of a single gun company that could be labeled as political in any way. They are all pretty equally disinterested in politics. I think they all appreciate it when their customers don't get harassed by people like handgun control incorporated, but that is a highly specific issue and it is one that directly relates to their line of work, so it is completely understandable that they wouldn't donate to them.

If the democratic party didn't have some notable wannabe gun banners then I'm sure that no gun company or advocacy group would even appear partisan.

[slackmaster]

143. Please get yourself some safety training before you pick up a gun or any other weapon

You will be glad you did.

[Runcible Spoon]

156. hahaha it's not like I've never handled anything dangerous before.

With a 1300 lb horse under me, I know how to respect and guide something that can kill me or anyone near us. I've also handled guns extensively, I just am completely turned off by the whole fetishitic gun ownership culture or else I would be shooting regularly since childhood.

and on edit, yours is one of the more aggressive attitudes that turned me off about this thread.

[tburnsten]

157. No worries, just shoot by yourself

Not a big deal, lots of people do it. Less to watch out for, since many ranges with other people on them can be scary. I've never been to a bad range, but they do exist, and mostly because a few people here or there get their feelings hurt when someone points out a mistake or safety violation they are in the process of committing. No room for hubris when shooting, doesn't mix well. Unless you are Jerry Miculek.


I don't know if I'd let "gun culture" turn me off from shooting.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

160. If you found that post aggressive you really do need to stay out any discussion on guns.