I would buy anything King writes. Great at his job. His opinion is his opinion. The money as to where it goes would not be of interest to me. As I would be spending it for y reading and that would be my concern , as I would be getting what i paid for.
We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal.I understand your perspective, though, knowing the money is going to a specific organisation that you and many others disagree with could seem counterproductive to creating an unbiased/rational debate. Depending what side of the fence you're on! However, I don't know hardly anything about The Brady Campaign, but it's my understanding they're about preventing gun violence and implementing reasonable gun laws. They aren't trying to ban all guns, so I don't see what's wrong with advocating for sensible laws to be enforced in the hope of saving lives in the future...or am I missing something regarding their agenda?
That is a quote from "Pete" Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc (It is now known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence)
Nelson "Pete" Shields became the organization's chairman in 1978 and retired in 1989
LOL you cheeky gal you. After some protest, YES I did… just as I will buy the Gun essay. I finally felt the need to voice my opinion overshadowed my objection on principle… just as I expect it will with Guns.Pee Ess; did you pay the $10 to voice your opinion at the second meeting? I'm just curious.
Fortunately, I wouldn't have to face that moral dilemma but I get what you're saying. If I had to make a choice, I would either donate an equal or greater amount of money to an organization that is working toward restrictions, background checks, etc. or make damn sure that the fund the NRA set up did not include any funding for furthering their agenda of armed personnel in schools.
There are two separate issues I have with the current position of the leadership of the NRA, but both of them have to do with their (IMO) irresponsibility in bringing anything meaningful to the table.
First, they are being irresponsible in their unwillingness to accept their part in this multi-faceted issue. They have done nothing but blame everything else other than their own intractable position of continuing to create a culture that worships guns rather than accept that there could possibly be any solution beyond escalation by arming more and more people. IMO
Secondly, that arming personnel at schools (more on this later) is the only way that children can be kept safe is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous and lazy but it certainly does perpetuate the gun culture and further ensures their future and mission to "educate" Americans about the value of guns in our society. It still ignores the very issue that guns in the wrong hands ARE a problem. Don't ignore that or think that educating people on how to shoot a gun is being responsible and that's where it ends--DEAL WITH IT!!! From what I've gathered, Lanza had been educated on the proper use of guns but should not have had access to them.
While I am vehemently against arming personnel at schools, I would have no problem with money being used to train those who want it for self-defense, to retrofit schools to make them safer with such things as bullet proof glass, lobby designs that would make it more difficult to gain access to classrooms, etc. I do not believe that arming personnel could guarantee massacres such as have occurred to date would not happen again. Let's take a few scenarios--shooter gets in the door and knowing or even just suspecting there will be someone waiting for him has taken precautionary measures such as protective armor not to be killed before his goal is accomplished and is able to take out the person who is there to protect the kids and still gets into classrooms. Okay, so do we then have a backup further down the hallway? Good idea, but where is that gun? Hopefully locked away safely to prevent any accidents or having a student or someone else who shouldn't gain access, easily getting to it. Just how far down the hall do we put that person to make sure they'll have time to get to the gun and in the meantime, how many people got shot along the way?
Before you get too up in arms (sorry, couldn't help myself), I will repeat that the second amendment right to bear arms should be maintained but in no way shape or form should it be a carte blanche license for any citizen to have whatever weapon or accompanying ammunition they want. Restrictions on guns will not stop all violence perpetrated with guns but I refuse to believe the solution is throwing up our arms and saying, there's nothing we can do, we'll just have to live with it and continue to escalate by buying more and more of them and reinforce the fear-based mentality that has become so prevalent in the past decade or so. The cycle has to stop. We are better than that. Other nations have proven that they are able to do so. Are we admitting that we aren't capable of the same?
If I really wanted to read your theoretical example essay, I might donate twice the amount to a polar opposite cause so I would feel less dirty about it!
Yes, I would still buy the essay. Why? Because, let's say I'm an alcoholic (and my name is Dan.) and I want to read King books but I know that he drinks beer which I am vehemently against. Should I stop buying his books because I know some of my money is going towards his beer intake? NO! What he does with his money is his business.
Wow, that is pretty extreme. While I would personally like to live in a society without handguns (all other things being equal), I don't think I could support outlawing handguns for US citizens as a whole. But of course, that was a quote from 1976, nearly four decades ago, a few years after his eldest son was murdered and long before the Brady Campaign was even in existence. And it's never been their official position as far as I can tell. Voting with your money is a time-honored tradition, but I think holding them responsible for a quote before they existed, before Handgun Control Inc. existed, even, a quote that does not seem to reflect their current goals or actions, seems a bit unfair. A lot can change in 37 years. That's a lifetime, TWO lifetimes, in politics.Originally Posted by exzel
I don't know the details, but that $10 fee sounds ... not entirely legal. You would think that towns would know not to do that kind of thing, but my family has been deeply involved in the government of small towns, and you would be amazed, AMAZED, at the crap they do. Basically the aldermen that run them often have very little knowledge of how government is supposed to work and tend to want to do a lot of things they shouldn't unless held in check. I'm mentioning this because if they try something similar again, you might want to check with a lawyer about it. If it turns out such fees are illegal, as I suspect they are, a simple "cease and desist" letter to the mayor should do the trick.LOL you cheeky gal you. After some protest, YES I did... just as I will buy the Gun essay. I finally felt the need to voice my opinion overshadowed my objection on principle... just as I expect it will with Guns.