Brady Campaign Board Member Gets CCW

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't understand why MS magazine isn't printing all the comments on the article?

I mean they posted this to stir up controversy and even if all the letters are pro-gun why wouldn't they want to print them all as a bragging point to demonstrate all the controversy they stirred up?
 
I mean they posted this to stir up controversy and even if all the letters are pro-gun why wouldn't they want to print them all as a bragging point to demonstrate all the controversy they stirred up?
Click to expand...

I wonder if Ms really knows what she is doing?
Its one thing for a ordinary person to ignorantly buy and handle a pistol, its altogether another thing for someone to intentionally do the same while performing "research" knowing full-well their actions are unwise.
Ms... if they had any sense... should wash their hands of her and her dangerous nonsense.
If under any circumstances she hurts something or someone they'll most certainly be dragged down also as a accessory of some sort for facilitating her silliness.

aaah.. but truth be told she probably has not actually loaded it yet and its all just a sensationalized fictional story meant to stir up the mashed potatos between the ears of her followers.
 
The pure stupidity of her article is mind blowing. I don't know of any of us "evil gun guys" that would recomend what this lady is doing. Carrying around a gun that may or may not be loaded with no knowledge of its function and no confidence in your ability to handle it is beyond dangerous. Is she really willing to risk a negligent discharge and hurting herself or someone else just to prove a point?

I've never advocated for training requirements for getting a CCW. I just thought it was plain old common sense. And I want to know who her "gun guy" is and why he wouldn't give her some sort of instruction on the gun. I don't know of any legit gun dealer who wouldn't give a first time buyer an idea of how the gun works. Granted a Glock is about as simple as it gets with a semi auto, but still at least show her the basics. I'm curious if he showed her any other guns to find one that she's comfortable with. Or did he just hand her a Glock 17 and sent her on her way?

Also, I don't understand how her doing everything she can to remain ignorant about her gun and handling it in an unsafe manner is making legal gun owners look bad. It just makes her look like an idiot and puts everyone around her in danger. Is this what the gun control debate is coming to?

Sorry for the long winded post, but this just blows my mind.
 
No ammo?

Anyone else pickup on how there wasn't any ammo in the gun. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that she never added any. So her hands are shaking and her adrenaline is surging from carrying a piece of plastic (albeit a great piece of plastic :)) on her hip that is as inert as it comes? Goodness. I guess I'd probably be a little concerned if I was open carrying an empty weapon around just due to the expectation that someone might be able to take it away without me doing much about it. But I don't think that's what she's saying...
 
She seems to have taken the position: "I'm going to be as uneducated and irresponsible as I possibly can in this, to demonstrate what a bad idea it is." That, my friends, is worse than simple stupidity. It's willful ignorance. Maybe she has ammo, maybe not. Either way, that's not how any gun owner goes about gun ownership, not even the ones that I personally would characterize as irresponsible. Even the irresponsible ones take a moment to learn how to load and fire the weapon. Just by learning those two very fundamental things, by necessity,one learns how to determine if a gun is loaded and what actions make it go bang (IOW, what actions to avoid if "bang" is undesireable.) Whether one puts that information to good use, well, that's an entirely different matter.
 
A fabulous ending would be -

"Anti gun activist takes up local instructor offer to learn gun handling, joins weekly pistol match, scores distinguished master"

Someone let me know if that happens...:p


Sgt Lumpy
 
I already have $10 on another board that says she'll have a ND on purpose before this ends.
Click to expand...

You can't have an ND on purpose. But you can fire a shot on purpose and CALL it an "accident". And blame the gun, as I have no doubt will be done if there is any discharge at all (assuming she does finally learn how to load her gun).

Posit the question;, since she is doing this "article" for a magazine (is Ms magazine one of the "evil hi capacity magazines?":rolleyes:), what, if any liablility does the magazine have should she injure or even kill someone through her deliberate ignorance?

Does her having it mean she has a gun in the workplace? (even if its her home, she works from there, right?)

Her entire approach to this puts me in mind of the time when Greenpeace went to film the clubbing of baby seals. When they got out on the ice, there was no one there killing the baby seals. So they had some of their own people do it so they could film it to show the rest of us the horror of it all. After all, the end justifies the means, right?

Machiavelli would be proud...
 
Checking back on the blog, the moderators have published another comment. This one, from 'Aaron', is a rather diplomatic (and long) disagreement with the author's premise.
 
As pointed out earlier, she lives in Washington State, in the Vancouver (WA, not Canada, the tourists are forever getting confused :p). That is just north of the Portland OR area, across the Columbia river. I searched just to find out where she lives, and if in the Puget Sound area I thought I might offer her some free range time and some amateur coaching, at a police-run range so she could feel all safe and protected :rolleyes: But Vancouver is too far away.

So she had her CPL prior to buying the gun, since she didn't have to wait the mandatory WA-required several days prior to picking it up. She didn't say there was a state law requiring a wait for those without a CPL, did she?

WA doesn't require classes and testing to get a CPL. Just a clean record and a 'pass' on the background check. Once the FBI certifies there are no bad things in the person's record, and the NSA is not upset with any emails that person sent in the last 15 years (:D) the license is issued.

I suspect the dealer did show her how to check and load the Glock. And she was too dingy to absorb even that little amount of info.

Bart Noir
Who has never before used 3 smilies in one post.
 
She didn't say there was a state law requiring a wait for those without a CPL, did she?
Click to expand...

So she is exempt from the waiting period thats normally required in her state because she previously obtained her CPL?
If so, she is hugely misrepresenting the facts of her whole story so far.

What exactly is a "CPL" anyway?
 
Concealed Pistol License.

Some states are specific about handguns; others, like Florida, allow knives, mace, Tasers, collapsible batons - hence "Concealed Weapons Permit."
 
-she is hugely misrepresenting the facts of her whole story so far.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That's kind of a 'given'.

But you are right and correct, we should keep track of EACH of her misrepresentations just to show how duplicitous she is being in this article.

Once again I don't know why MS is blocking comments to her article. I would have thought they would be BRAGGING about how many comments the article was generating.
 
44 AMP,

I respectifully disagree. You can have a negligent discharge on purpose.

To be honest, I don't see how any shot fired from that Glock won't be negligent in some way or another.
That kinda is her whole point, isn't it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top