take the Brady survey let them know

B

butwhat

New member
If the link doesn't work look for the poll.

Sarah Brady is sending supporters a link to an on-line survey asking them (as a faithful friends) to answer the questions and help guide the Brady Campaign in their dealings with Congress and state legislatures.

Being a democratic guy, I feel compelled to share this with others concerned about the gun control issue so the Brady's get a very clear picture of just what the public really thinks about their issues.

Just like the surveys often sent out by pro-gun groups this survey is more about fundraising than actually seeking anyones opinion. Please answer the survey and consider following through on their fundraising appeal by writing a check to your favorite gun rights group. We at the Firearms Coalition would be very proud to receive donations in honor of Sarah Brady.

Follow this link and answer Sarah Brady's survey:

http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SRV_2007GeneralLegislativePrioritiesSurvey

The "Name", "Address", and "Email" request at the top can be left blank.

If you enter an e-mail address, they might put you on their mailing list so you can keep tabs on their activities.

Please pass this on and post it wherever you can. I'm not sure Sarah's servers can handle the traffic we can generate!

Yours for the Second Amendment

Jeff Knox
Director of Operations
The Firearms Coalition
 
I do not like the way this poll is set up. It tries to "educate/steer" you with an intro sentence before each question.

It could also be confusing for some people on some questions as to whether they are disagreeing with their initial statement or the statement in the second sentence after the "How strongly do you agree with this statement" question.
 
do not like the way this poll is set up. It tries to "educate/steer" you with an intro sentence before each question.
Click to expand...

They have never ever been fair, and tend to warp the truth. Not followed the Brady bunch enough to say they do but other anit-gun advocates will tell out right lies.

Liars and thieves are in the same category in my book.
 
I answered the poll questions to thier dismay I stongly disagree with every question.
Click to expand...

Really? I only "disagree" with the whole requiring a background check for every purchase (though I suppose I "strongly disagree" with calling it a Brady background check). And I'm "neutral" on allowing the ATF/LE more power to shut down gun dealers who violate the law allowing criminals easier access to guns.

Actually, I "strongly agree" with that second one...but knowing that any policy that claims to be to that end will probably be perverted and abused, I couldn't summon up more than a "neutral" on it.

But yeah, bulk sales? Whatever. And "assualt weapons?" Every time I hear the term used seriously, I want to put as many holes as possible into the person using it. With an assault weapon, regular weapon, whatever's handy.
 
I only strongly disagree with the assault weapon ban. This is the only one that hurts us law abiding citizens.:mad: Criminals will get the guns regardless. The rest I voted neutral.:D
 
I only strongly disagree with the assault weapon ban. This is the only one that hurts us law abiding citizens. Criminals will get the guns regardless. The rest I voted neutral.
Click to expand...

I didn't like the wording on the Brady checks one. Basically, they're talking about all gun sales, including say a private sale between my brother (if I had one) and I. Total crap.

Now, if they just wanted to find a way to start regulating gunshows, I could probably slap a "neutral" (heck, maybe an "agree") on it. But adding that level of rigamarole to private sales between two people who know each other? Yeah, I can't get behind that.
 
I strongly agree that they should removed from the political arena. Sarah Brady is a resentful, illogical nutjob that should be locked up in a padded room for taking her "ideas" out on all of us.

There is nothing good that could ever come from anything the Brady Gestapo does. Their goal is to eliminate firearms; they care not for the rights of the rest of us. If there is anyone that should have any influence in how firearms are sold (as far as background checks and whatnot) it should be the local areas; state-level at most.

Nothing good can come out of any Federal firearms regulation; it is a slippery slope and it heads downhill only. State-level regulation is even sketchy; I think it should be restricted to county and city, and even then nothing that infringes on the rights of anyone who does not have violent convitions.
 
I strongly disagreed with all of them.

1.) The assault weapons ban was a no brainer.

2.) An "unlicensed dealer" would be operating in violation of federal law. It seems kind of silly to require somebody who's already breaking the law to conduct background checks. Private individuals who are not in the business of dealing in firearms should be able to sell guns out of their personal collection to other residents of their state without Federal oversight.

3.) I don't believe it's anybody's damned business if I want to buy 10, 20 or 100 guns at a time.

4.) There's no mention of how they intend to strengthen law enforcement powers. They do however mention crime gun trace data which leads to believe that their actual intent is to make such data more widely available. It's already available to the ATF and it's the ATF's job to enforce regulations regarding gun dealers. I see no reason why anybody else would need access to that data other than to abuse it. It's the kind of information that people like that $%*# Bloomberg in the NYC would kill for in their campaign to sue gun dealers out of business.
 
Now, if they just wanted to find a way to start regulating gunshows, I could probably slap a "neutral" (heck, maybe an "agree") on it. But adding that level of rigamarole to private sales between two people who know each other? Yeah, I can't get behind that.
Click to expand...

And why sir, may I ask, would you want to do that?

Do you suppose that will stop the criminal element in our society from getting and/or using guns?
Did you read what the fellow had to say from Holland the other day?

Where I live we can buy/sell at gun shows or in the advertisers or the daily newspaper and we have a very low incidence of gun violence.
Laws such as you would agree with will only stop us folks that try to stay legal and not do one thing to stop illegal gun usage.
If you don't think so look at LA or NYC.

Sometimes it is hard to believe what I read here. Sounds like maybe the anti's have been doing their job well.
 
And why sir, may I ask, would you want to do that?

Do you suppose that will stop the criminal element in our society from getting and/or using guns?
Did you read what the fellow had to say from Holland the other day?

Where I live we can buy/sell at gun shows or in the advertisers or the daily newspaper and we have a very low incidence of gun violence.
Laws such as you would agree with will only stop us folks that try to stay legal and not do one thing to stop illegal gun usage.
If you don't think so look at LA or NYC.

Sometimes it is hard to believe what I read here. Sounds like maybe the anti's have been doing their job well.
Click to expand...

Oh, trust me...I know it won't do anything to stop criminals in general from getting guns, or eliminate gun crime. It may, however, make guns marginally more difficult to get for criminals while at the same time causing minimal harm to legal gun owners/buyers. I don't have a huge problem with that...though honestly even lukewarm support for it is hard to muster as well. Hence, "neutral."

And of course it'd depend on what kind of regulations were proposed. I imagine whatever most anti-gun legislators managed to come up with I'd end up opposing anyway.

*shrug*

I don't like the status quo much, personally. There are a few additional regulations I wouldn't mind seeing, and obviously a lot of regulations I'd really like to see go. If I had to choose one or the other, I'd obviously rather see the bad ones go...but that doesn't mean my mind is completely closed to any new regulation that makes sense.

EDIT: Such regulations are, of course, few and far between.
 
It may, however, make guns marginally more difficult to get for criminals while at the same time causing minimal harm to legal gun owners/buyers.
Click to expand...

The criminals are at your house, stealing your guns, while you are away at the gun show.
 
...but that doesn't mean my mind is completely closed to any new regulation that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Trouble is if what is on the books now it would be more than enough. Another is never enough EVER, it's just another chip out of our rights as legal owners.

The tree of gun freedom is slowly being chopped down, one new regulation that makes sense chip at a time.
 
Since the expiration of the federal Assault Weapons Ban two years ago, there has been a significant rise in violent crime and homicides.
Click to expand...

???? What????
Even if that is true, which I doubt considering that violent crime has remained stable, and that assault weapons are negligible in their role of crime, it still doesn't show that they are related.

Once the democrats took control, there was a significant rise in violent crime and homicides.

As the number of pirates decreased two years ago, there was a significant rise in violent crime and homicides.

2 years ago the year ended with a "6" and violent crime and homicides had a significant rise. The banning of years ending in the number 6 is an important goal. How strongly do you agree with this statement...
 
Funny, but crap like this is what finally convinced me to join the NRA last night. I don't agree with every thing the NRA does, but I'll pick my own destiny rather than have it decided for me.
 
Venison_Jerkey32

just say "since introduction of the federal Assault Weapons Ban thirteen years ago, there has been a significant rise in violent crime and homicides."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top