Brady Campaign Stifles One Amendment to Restrict Another

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership—I mean, Violence would like to see a firearms-related question in the October 3rd Presidential debate. So do we. While we know where the candidates stand on an assault weapons ban (Obama is for it on the DL, Romney was for it before he was against it), I’d love to hear the Oval Office aspirants address constitutional carry and national reciprocity. But then I’d like a date with Filippa Hamilton. Meanwhile, how come an organization using the free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to ask for a debate on Second Amendment issues disables comments on its YouTube channel and Facebook page? I mean, the Bradys could institute a no-flaming policy like TTAG. Just sayin’ . . .

comments

  1. avatar Aharon says:

    Thanks Robert. After looking through the 17 hot French models at the link I’m now going to have to go to beauty school to get certificated in providing bikini waxes and hair removal.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      I’m retired now. Maybe it’s time for me to look into a new career. Brazilian wax tech, ladies only. I’m too close to San Francisco not to specify gender.

      1. avatar Aharon says:

        It will be a great fit for you! Since you are close to SF be sure to specify not just the gender but their biological born sex too or you might have a surprise customer one day. The concept of gender was introduced by the left to blur the distinction in there being just two recognized sexes male and female. Gender is a fluid term favored by the Left. I think Brazil is now up to recognizing five genders.

        1. avatar Alec says:

          What are the five?

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Ignorent me. I thought there were 2, male and female.

        3. avatar Aharon says:

          As I recall, there is hetero, gay, bisexual, and then I think two were for the transgenders. I am sure that in a few years there will be more. Just wait.

  2. avatar Sanchanim says:

    Thanks Aharon, I have spit my morning coffee everywhere hahahaha
    Actually I have found many organizations like the Brady or even far left news media will ban you or not allow comments. I could totally understand if you were flaming or being mean. I talking about getting kicked off for responding kindly and giving links to some of Bruce’s fine work or even the raw data where that was retrieved from. Truly sickening that they refuse to even have a debate on the subject. Then aging I expect such actions from the left. Sorry to all the middle liberals on here. I only say this due to my direct interactions with family and friends who are far left. I talking so far left that they make Obama seem like a blue dog dem lol

    1. avatar Aharon says:

      🙂 Hope you still had enough coffee to enjoy.

      It’s funny that you wrote about the censorship issue. All the pro Men’s Right Movement (MRM) sites tolerate comments regardless of political view after a posting to include even tolerating the more emotionally unbalanced and irrational comments by radical feminists. However, the feminist sites practice extreme censorship and are intolerant of any view that is not in complete support of their ideology.

      Professor Howard S. Schwartz, Oakland University, Michigan wrote:
      “I have no doubt that, someday, the distortion of truth by the radical feminists of our time will be seen to have been the greatest intellectual crime of the second half of the twentieth century. At the present time, however, we still live under the aegis of that crime, and calling attention to it is an act of great moral courage”

      I often associate liberals, feminists, and democrats as being just slightly more emotionally mature than young children.

      1. avatar Will says:

        Not surprised I hope. Those groups that usually cry the loudest for “tolerance” will not ever practice it themselves. It goes against their agenda to allow adversarial views (as in any view that doesn’t equate to theirs) to exist.

  3. avatar Silver says:

    Because hypocrisy and double-standards are the hallmarks of the leftist agenda. The entire progressive platform would fall apart without the double-standards they bestow unto themselves and their pet protected classes.

    Regardless, censorship is the first sign that the people supporting that position know, deep down, that they’re wrong.

    And, really, what more would you expect from an organization that literally does nothing but lie and deceive in order to further a tyrannical agenda?

    Besides, we all know they don’t want a fair gun-related question in the debate. They want a question like, “Mr. Romney, are you for gun control, or do you enjoy the blood of dead children?”

  4. avatar Greg Camp says:

    You expect an organization that doesn’t believe in freedom to have a policy of freedom? Oh, right, you were asking a rhetorical question.

  5. avatar 16V says:

    Hopefully they address the issues of the Houston TX police being armed, as one of them executed an unarmed double-amputee in a wheelchair yesterday.

    1. avatar speedracer5050 says:

      According to the news report the guy in the wheelchair was trying to stab the officer with a pen after he had backed the officer into a corner with his wheelchair, according to the owner and witnesses.
      Had the officer tried to Physically restrain him he could very well have been stabbed anywhere in the face or neck.
      Not justifying the shooting but we don’t know since we weren’t there.
      Most amputees and people who have been through physical rehab can be pretty damn strong!!

      1. avatar 16V says:

        Not sure what report you read, but even the AP wire report last night was far more damning than that. I could care less if the double amputee had a machete, there was absolutely nothing in this scenario that justified lethal force. Baton? Sure. Pepper? Sure. Tazer? Big maybe. Gun? WTF. This is a guy with one arm and one leg in a wheelchair.

        Just another one of the daily cases of officer incompetence coupled with the current training metric of “you’re a super-citizen, you can shoot anything and anyone that makes you mildly nervous with little chance of any consequences”.

        He already has one fatal shoot for ‘failure to immediately obey’ in his jacket from 3 years ago. Perp was stabbing a friend, so maybe that one was a good shoot. But 2 in 3 is a pretty clear indicator there’s only one tool you reach for on the bat-belt. And you’re looking to use it.

  6. avatar Curzen says:

    your no flaming policy stifles my free speech quite a lot as well though

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Apples and oranges.

      1. avatar Some Civilian says:

        Actually not.

        There is not, as you seem to believe, a First Amendment guarantee to post comments on the Brady Bunch’s YouTube channel.

        Brady is a private corporate. YouTube is owned by a private corporation.

        It may be an example of repressive libertarianism, but technically it’s not a violation of the letter of the First Amendment.

        I’m sure it’s all explained in the fine print of YouTube’s 3,800+ word contract that you agreed to by visiting their site.

        1. avatar Curzen says:

          While that is certainly true, if you are for freedom of speech and strive to apply it to discourse in private venues censoring arbitrarily for “flaming” is definitely suppressing freedom of speech. There is no apples and oranges.

        2. avatar Robert Farago says:

          We strive to provide a venue for untrammeled freedom of speech. But we impose decency-related limits that encourage and enable it. How Orwellian is that? But it seems to work for us. Why not them?

        3. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Rob, as much as I like the site, we all know that a good portion of the things you delete for “flaming” are merely people criticizing the site. For some reason, you find it horribly offensive for people to criticize the site where others can see and be made aware of the issue….sorry, but that’s a tad Orwellian there.

      2. avatar Mike S says:

        You (we) know why.

  7. avatar Phil H says:

    The question of sites allowing questions is an interesting one, but did anyone actually listen to the video? So much misinformation out there… so much outdated information. Sigh.

  8. avatar Floyd D. Barber says:

    Where are these readily available fully automatic weapons?

    1. avatar 16V says:

      In the US? On cheesy police procedurals.

  9. avatar jkp says:

    The Bradys aren’t the government.

    The 1st Amendment applies only to government action, not private action.

    Therefore, the Bradys aren’t suppressing the First Amendment.

    They are trying to convince voters and government officials to take political action that would suppress the Second Amendment….but that’s a different matter.

    1. avatar Greg Camp says:

      You are correct that the Brady Bunch is within its rights to disable comments, but doing so shows their attitude toward freedom–they hate it. They don’t trust ordinary Americans enough to allow an open discussion. Again, it’s within their rights, and it’s within our rights to call them out for it.

      1. avatar Will says:

        You mean the same open discussion they ask for?

        Just goes to show how open they really want their discussion.

  10. avatar John Fritz says:

    I wonder how many of those interviewees have their SAG cards?

  11. avatar liquidflorian says:

    Is it just me or does Colin Goodard seem like he’s… “off”.

  12. avatar alfinasplace says:

    Why would you amend any part of the 2nd amendment? Doing so would change all of rights of all law abiding gun owners.

  13. avatar Bob says:

    The only arguments the gun-control advocates have consist of lies, half-truths, innuendo, and anecdotal arguments. They can’t allow a pro-gun argument to enter their web site because it would easily defeat their arguments. Allowing comments on their web sites would only show how patently false their gun-control philosophy is.

  14. avatar Will says:

    The interviewees that made it into this bit of footage show two things: a total lack of knowledge, and people’s opinion are based on hearsay and misinformation.

    ONE questions was at least half-way valid. “…do you feel it’s right that we should have background checks on all weapons and assault weapons and on the purchase and on the people purchasing the weapons…”

    I dunno how that slipped, unless they didn’t see that as challenging the checks, but as supporting them.

    Anyway, it’s easy to tell the video clip is heavily edited (for time and) for opinion.

  15. avatar New Order says:

    The Brady Campaign? Ha what worthless scum. That cripple should just die already and leave guns to the living.

  16. avatar Greg Camp says:

    I just sent a tweet (gasp, I’ll have to surrender my Luddite license soon…) to #askaboutguns. Mine wants Jim Lehrer to ask what each candidate will do to increase gun ownership and legal concealed carry.

    Not quite what they had in mind, I’m sure, but they did ask.

  17. avatar Jacob says:

    They only have 250 subcribers seems to me that no one gives 2 $hit$ about them.

  18. avatar Totenglocke says:

    If there’s a god, he’ll let Collin Goddard be seriously injured by a knife wielding mugger…. Maybe then the coward would realize that guns are pretty damn useful for self defense.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email