The Brady Campaign is again trying to make money off the dead.

[friendly_iconoclast]

Just as the American Life League, the Army of God, and Live Action claim to be acting on behalf of every zygote, fertilized egg, and stray sperm
in the known universe, the various Brady Campaigns and their employees have never been shy about claiming to speak for all victims of gun violence:

Colin Goddard Speaks for 32
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117227650

(Except, of course when they aren't:

Holly Adams’ Statement on the Virginia Tech Massacre and Campus Carry
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117232278)


Much as in the aftermath of the Tuscon shootings, the BC have seized upon the Trayvon Martin case to shill for money. Their latest mailing
comes with a large dollop of conspiracy theory as an extra. First off, the outer envelope bears the following:

The NRA and George Zimmerman

Inside, we find a flyer with the header:

BRADY'S NEW PRESIDENT SPEAKS OUT ON TRAYVON MARTIN

Of course, the careful reader will note that they do not claim to speak on behalf of his family, as there is no indication that they want
the Bradys to do so.

At least they found an actual relative for the next one:

TRIBUTE TO CHRISTINA-TAYLOR GREEN

My niece, my daughter's cousin....

Hmm, what about the opinion of one her parents? Oops, doesn't fit the program:

"Why don't *you* listen to the father of one of the victims, John Green?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11726794#post45

"We don't need anymore restrictions on our society"

"If we live in a country like the United States, where people are more free than anywhere else, we are subject to things like this happening."

I guess some special pleading is more important to other special pleading...

[DanTex]

1. Umm... the American Cancer Society also "makes money off the dead".

I'm sure the tobacco lobby would join you in chiding them in a similarly twisted and incoherent rant.

Trayvon Martin's family have actually stated that they want to see the SYG law removed. And this is completely understandable. So is the fact that Colin Goddard wants to prevent other tragedies like the one that affected him personally and almost cost him his life. Families of people who have suffered needless and tragedies frequently work to try and make sure others don't have to suffer the same thing they did.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. The ACS actually does stuff. The Bradys issue press releases.

The various Brady Campaigns donated the princely sum of $3000 to various candidates in the 2010 election cycle. In that respect, they're more
like the Susan G. Komen Foundation in their exploitation of the well-meaning to fund generous bennies for the management...

[rrneck]

2. Yep

Coke vs. Pepsi, Ford vs. Chevy, Exxon vs. BP, ABC vs. CBS, VPC vs. NRA...

Don't sell the steak, sell the sizzle.

[bongbong]

4. It's terrible

It's terrible the Brady campaign is doing this. Instead, they should hold pro-gun festivals in states where there have been recent massacres like the NRA did right after Columbine.

[rl6214]

5. You mean the one that was planned for over a year before?

The one that would be next to impossible to change logistically?

But I'm sure YOU thing they set it up and got all the planning done right after the Columbine shooting just to spite the community.

[DonP]

6. Doesn't matter ...

...that it was planned for two years prior.

...that they cancelled all but the legally required board meeting and elections.

...that Denver and a lot of small businesses, bus boys, wait staff and others took a bath to the tune of millions of $ with cancelled room reservations and restaurants, they're just little people anyway.

In the meantime ... we'll just overlook Brady going on the Virginia Tech campus and trying to run a fund raising event on the 1st anniversary of the massacre. After all they mean well and the NRA is pure evil and we all know Heston and Nugent planned it all anyway.

But why let any actual facts get in the way of another emotional rant if it makes you feel good.

[bongbong]

9. FUnny

The NRA can turn on a dime if they need to get rid of a pesky Democrat who changes his mind and opposes their re-definition of the 2nd Amendment (after he supported it). Or they can order thousands of protesters on a moment's notice if they need to have their gun-religion re-affirmed under some horrible threat.

Never let facts get in the way of your religion.

[DonP]

13. Never done any meeting planning for 60,000, right?

The NRA has no political power at all, check your gun control talking points from your fellow travelers for March, or did you miss that series of posts? That's why you can all ignore them.

Changing a meeting of that size on 2 weeks notice, part of which is required to keep your 501C3 and 501C4 incorporation charter, is not physically possible. It's not like the Joyce Foundation, that can reconvene at a another fine dining restaurant on short notice. Or Brady that can just pick another phone booth or Bus Stop to gather in.

But it makes a much better story to lie about it and try and make it sound like they planned it all to rub the Columbine incident in.

And how about a few examples, or even one, of the "thousands of protestors they put on the street at a moment's notice"?

I guess most of us missed that in the news, but I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a few reports of it

[bongbong]

14. Oh

> Changing a meeting of that size on 2 weeks notice, part of which is required to keep your 501C3 and 501C4 incorporation charter, is not physically possible.

That's an odd misstatement. For example, after 911 all kinds of big meetings, etc were changed on a moment's notice. I thought the NRA was a better run organization. They sure have all the repigs, and most of the Democrats, in their pockets.

> And how about a few examples, or even one, of

First you'll have to prove that those meetings, etc that got changed right after 911 didn't actually get changed. You'll have to prove the existance of an alternate universe, in other words, to support your contention that it was "impossible" for the NRA to change theirs. Once you prove that, I'll give you some examples.

As always with you gun-religionists,

[shadowrider]

15. "All kinds of meetings, etc that got changed"

You can prove this with examples, right?

[DonP]

16. Let him laugh - it's all they have these days

His comments are ridiculous on their face and of course he has no support for any of his made up snark. But you can understand their growing frustration and feelings of impotence.

There hasn't been a single piece of major gun control passed at the Federal level in over a decade and there aren't any serious prospects of any coming up either. All while Heller, McDonald, state by state CCW, Castle Doctrine, SYG and other pro-second amendment laws continue to pass.

The gun control "fans" can rant, rave and snark all they want, but they have nothing going for them in the real world. Hell, even Brady had their Joyce check cut down by 50% this year and they had to lay off a bunch of their PR staff. And it's not like their membership or anybody else is rushing in to support them.

Gun control supporters have proven that they will continue to snipe around the edges, snark online, throw ad hominems around and do nothing in the real world to change the dynamics of the process.

I'd much rather have the actual results we're getting than that false, self satisfied feeling they seem to revel in.

[iverglas]

22. do you also strut and crow every time

another bill violating women's reproductive rights is passed?

Talk about yer situational ethics ...

Might makes right!

[DonP]

24. No, and that's a silly, utterly unrelated and absolutely typical question

[iverglas]

33. hahahahaha

Unlike the false equivalencies constantly asserted by your iconoclastic friend, this one is quite real.

Legislatures enact legislation all the time that is contrary to the public interest and the interests of individuals, and that is not supported by a majority of their constituents.

You're engaging in really quite unseemly gloating about the ugly right-wing legislation enacted by ugly right-wing scum in this instance. I just wonder whether you act that way every time some ugly right-wing scum enact ugly right-wing legislation.

If might makes right, then it's right in every instance.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. I keep forgetting that if it isn't what *you* deem a right, it isn't important...

Funny how some people don't care to have the methods they (and others with the same purpose) use directed back at them.
All those "reasonable" and "common-sense" restrictions on access to abortion and contraception recently passed in various backwaters spring to mind.

'Situational ethics', indeed...

[iverglas]

34. do you forget many false things?

Maybe you forget all false things.

That could keep you awfully busy ...

All those "reasonable" and "common-sense" restrictions on access to abortion and contraception recently passed in various backwaters spring to mind.

You seem to be pretending that I have even once said something that involved the terms/concepts "reasonable" and "common-sense". How very tricky of you.

I have yet to encounter a JUSTIFIED restriction on access to abortion or contraception -- other than the usual restrictions on access to medical/surgical services that are imposed in the public interest and the interests of individuals: that they be provided by qualified medical professionals (and that pharmaceuticals be dispensed by pharmacists).

I can list you a thousand JUSTIFIED restrictions on every right under the sun. Including the right to possess firearms.

As a matter of fact, you could make a good start on that latter list yourself, I do believe. For every right you could name.

There are rules in both our societies for determining what is a justified restriction on the exercise of a right. Any time you want to educate yourself on them and discuss them, I'm here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. The fetus fetishists also tell us *their* restrictions are justified.

And FSM knows they issue plenty of mawkish glurge telling the world how noble their efforts are.

ALL special pleading in an attempt to restrict the rights of others is the same.

[iverglas]

38. I'm happy to say it again

There are rules in both our societies for determining what is a justified restriction on the exercise of a right. Any time you want to educate yourself on them and discuss them, I'm here.

[Callisto32]

32. Laughing...it comes before losing :D

[iverglas]

21. how about: who the fuck cares?

It could simply have been cancelled and all those little essential organizational meetings held somewhere and sometime else.

Simple respect for a community in shock and mourning can go a long way.

[oneshooter]

25. Are all Canadians as foul mouthed as you are?

[gejohnston]

26. Nawwwwwwwwww she is just on shore leave

from her ship.

[iverglas]

35. coming from one of the foulest mouths I've encountered at this site

-- all I can say is: you make me laugh.

You evidently find speaking with hideous disrespect for other people to be more fun than four-letter words. Different strokes.

[rl6214]

23. "order thousands of protesters on a moment's notice"?

Do you REALLY believe ANYTHING you say?

You really got anything to back that up or just the normal BS you spew?

Then your "gun religion" post is just laughable. You anti-gun zealots are just hilarious. You wouldn't know a fact if it smacked you in the ass.

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. The Bradys tried to crash the Virginia Tech anniversary service. Can we say 'situational ethics'?

http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/157483

Advocates of gun control plan lie-in at Virginia Tech
The student government at Virginia Tech asked protesters to demonstrate on a day besides April 16.

By Greg Esposito

BLACKSBURG -- Gun-control advocates planning to protest April 16 on Virginia Tech's Drillfield said Tuesday that they hope to reach a compromise with the university that will allow them to protest without interfering with remembrance events.

Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence, said the group has been working with Tech students on the protest. It would involve a 32-person "lie-in" at noon April 16, the one-year anniversary of campus shootings that left 32 people dead plus the shooter.

The Brady Campaign sent out a media advisory Thursday announcing the event, planned in conjunction with the gun-control group ProtestEasyGuns.com. Hamm said Tuesday that the gun-control groups had not discussed the event with the university.

Hamm was initially discouraged by what he saw as a hard-line stance by the university against issuing a permit and said Tuesday morning that the event would go ahead as scheduled -- permit or no permit....

[bongbong]

8. 32 people

> would involve a 32-person "lie-in" at noon April 16,

Having a national NRA convention with hundreds or thousands of attendees is EXACTLY equivalent to 32 people protesting.

That is, if you're a gun-religionist.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. So it was only a *little bit* insensitive?

[Doctor_J]

10. As opposed to the NRA, which is trying to make more dead

[gejohnston]

11. I disagree

if the weapon was anything other than a gun, Brady would simply not care. They care about guns, but don't give a rats ass about violence.

[iverglas]

12. and you are once again embarking

on your foul and wholly uncandid appropriation of women's voices and lives in the service of your agenda.


And Holly Adams, btw, does not speak for her deceased child

http://www.remembrance.vt.edu/2007/biographies/leslie_geraldine_sherman.html

... who was planning to join the Peace Corps ...


Some parents may actually want to sacrifice their children on the altar of freeeedumb. They don't get to make that decision.

[GreenStormCloud]

17. Holly Adams does not claim to be speaking for anyone but herself.

Holly Adams from the OP: "Speaking for myself,..."

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. ...unlike Colin Goddard, who is getting paid to claim he speaks for all VT victims.

[iverglas]

20. leaving aside your ugly and inappropriate references to anti-choice organizations

you said this:

the various Brady Campaigns and their employees have never been shy about claiming to speak for all victims of gun violence:

Colin Goddard Speaks for 32
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117227650

(Except, of course when they aren't:

Holly Adams’ Statement on the Virginia Tech Massacre and Campus Carry
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117232278)

So what does that mean, exactly? What message is the juxtaposition of Goddard and Adams intended to convey to the reader?

Colin Goddard was in the class being taught by the Canadian French professor who was murdered. He was shot. He was a classmate of the people who didn't survive. He knew them.

His film is actually called "LIVING for 32". (Edit to clarify: obviously he refers to the duty that some survivors of disasters, greater or lesser, feel to the memory of those who didn't survive. If you don't like that, tell it to Holocaust survivor Frank Mahr, just for starters: “And while my mother, sister and friends have all gone now, I am still living for all of them and giving back as much as I can to the children because I still remember the children of the ghetto.”)

Where the thread title "speaks for 32" came from, I don't know. The only place the phrase appears on the internet is in that thread.

I wouldn't be building a great big case on it, if I were you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. Nice Godwin! BTW, a few gunshot survivors have posted here over the years.

AFAIK none of them have purported to be acting on behalf of other shooting victims.
Then again, they weren't getting paid to do so...

[iverglas]

30. nice reiteration of your false premise

Last edited Thu May 3, 2012, 10:06 AM - Edit history (1)

none of them have purported to be acting on behalf of other shooting victims

And since Colin Goddard doesn't purport to be doing so either, you have no case.

Then again, they weren't getting paid to do so...

Pretty funny. Absolutely hilarious, actually.

Maybe all the money gathered up by the NRA-ILA doesn't go to paying anybody to do anything to advance the gun militant agenda ...





why can I not compose a subject line w/o a glaring typo ...

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. And if you insist on going *that* route, Google the name "Gianna Jessen"

Appeals to emotion are appeals to emotion...

[iverglas]

31. I'm not going any route

(and I have no need to google that turd - edit - but don't let me stop you from digging yourself further into your ugly false equivalency)

You're the one who tried to build that false route, and you failed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. Some special pleading is more equal than other special pleading in certain circles...

[iverglas]

39. somebody has learned a new phrase

Brawk.

I'll indulge your apparent passion for repetition.

There are rules in both our societies for determining what is a justified restriction on the exercise of a right. Any time you want to educate yourself on them and discuss them, I'm here.