Sarah Brady is "at least" a hypocrite or a criminal

[Greg Meyer]

Follow this link to see the original: http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/news/politics/2909641.htm



Posted on Thu, Mar. 21, 2002



Gun control advocate may have violated gun lawsBy TIMOTHY J. BURGERNew York Daily News



WASHINGTON - Gun-control advocate Sarah Brady bought her son a powerful rifle for Christmas in 2000 - and may have skirted Delaware state background-check requirements, the New York Daily News has learned.Brady reveals in a new memoir that she bought James Brady Jr. a Remington .30-06, complete with scope and safety lock, at a Lewes, Del., gun shop."I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little car and drove home," she writes. "It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat."Brady became a household name as a crusader for stricter gun-control laws after her husband, James, then the White House press secretary, was seriously wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan.Brady writes in "A Good Fight" that the unnamed gun shop ran federal Brady Law and Delaware state background checks with great fanfare.The book suggests that she did not have her son checked, as required by Delaware state law."(W)hen the owner called in the checks, it seemed to me he spoke unnecessarily loudly, repeating and spelling my name over and over on the phone," Brady writes.Amy Stillwell, a spokeswoman for The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the federal Brady Law does not require background checks for intrafamily gun gifts.Stillwell said she did not know whether her son was checked under the state law. The Delaware Department of Justice says the state does not have an exemption for family gifts."Scott is not a convicted felon, and he is not prohibited from owning a gun," Stillwell said. "Scott Brady could walk into a store and buy a - he is not a prohibited purchaser."Delaware Justice Department spokeswoman Lori Sitler said the purchase could be illegal under state law if Brady did not also say who she was buying the gun for and submit his "name, rank and serial number" for a full check."You can't purchase a gun for someone else," Sitler said yesterday. "That would be a 'straw purchase.' You've got a problem right there."Anti-gun control advocates were surprised to hear of Brady's foray into their world."We hope that it's innocuous and there's been no laws violated," said James Jay Baker, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. "It's obviously interesting that Sarah would be purchasing firearms of any kind for anybody, given her championing of restrictive guns laws for everyone."

 

[Rob LaMoy]

She's not the first gun control advocate to blunder so big. I cannot recall the name, but in the late 80's a big time journalist and gun control advocate was arrested with an ILLEGAL pistol he kept in his night stand after he thought there was an intruder in his yard. OK, but WE are supposed to trust that the police will show up fast enough! LOL They are so ignorant they just don't even know it. The scary part is, people are believing these raving morons! If I were Wayne Lapierre, every time these people protested, I would bring up these two events OVER and OVER! They're not for gun control, they're for SELECTIVE gun control...sound familiar. Gee didn't a guy named Hitler do something like that, and Stalin? They can have my gun when they pry it from my dead cold fingers!!!!!!

 

[Jeff Duggan]

Yeah, I also read somewhere that Rosie O'Donnel's son's body guard carries a pistol. Oh, but it's okay for him to carry a pistol since he's protecting her son.....it's just not okay for anyone else to protect themselves or their children!

 

[Rob LaMoy]

Funny how that works isn't it? Proof is in the puddin'. They don't want law abiding citizens to carry. Criminals are just fine, but not you and I, oh yeah and they can carry cause some of US gun toting lunatics might come after them. I'm sorry, I think it's time for the vast majority of the American populations to remove the head from their rectum and do a little thinking. The facts that the 'crats in DC are proposing as truths in the name of gun control and a safer society, simply do NOT add up. 2+2 does not equal 6 no matter how you poll it! Don't get me started again. I cannot wait to make the big time and donate as much as possible to the NRA. Those sniveling little snot nosed self informed, left wing, liberal, right stealing yahoos need to climb back under the rock from whence the came, less the sun melt their evil doings! There is a much darker plot at work here, and nobody that can honestly say they have done their homework on the subjuect can deny it. There is a very real and sinister agenda behind this gun contol movement, and if we don't stop it cold and call a spade a spade then we can all try to stop murderers and rapists armed with pistols, with our red rider BB guns and sling shots! 'NUFF SAID!

 

[Rich Stern]

Rob, good people come from all walks of life, and can be Repubs, Dems, liberals, conservatives, lefts, rights, Arabs, Jews, etc. etc. etc. What's important to remember is that ideas and dialogue serve us better than labels and slurs.



I agree that our citizens should have a right to bear arms. However, I have met too many citizens who are not criminals, yet don't have the proper maturity or common sense to be trusted with a firearm. I worry that my little boy will go home with a friend after school someday, to a home where firearms are not treated with respect, i.e., loaded and within reach of children. Or that a firearm out of that same home will make it's way to my son's school. Seems to happen enough in our society to warrant concern. Yes?



We live in a society where our tremendous personal freedom can cause heartache. How many thousands of times a day do people abuse their right to drink alcohol by getting behind the wheel of an automobile and taking a chance with the life of everyone they pass on road home? I'm embarrassed to say that I can recall a couple of times when I should not have driven. And I consider myself reasonably intelligent and responsible!



So, while you fear losing rights you hold dear, I fear losing my son to someone who doesn't deserve, appreciate or have appropriate respect for those rights. If I lost him to such a situation, I can't say that I wouldn't be like Sarah Brady, crusading to keep that from happening to someone else's boy.



We have to debate these issues. We have to constantly be asking ourselves about where your freedom ends and mine begins. And vice versa. The world continually gets more complicated, and for our ideals to survive the changes, we have to keep questioning ourselves and not relying on pat answers.

 

[Staci Matheis]

On this one, I'm with Rich.

 

[Rob LaMoy]

Rich,

I can fully appreciate your view. Again I apologize for my rather unappropriate depictions. I am certainly not prejudice against anyone. And I do support many democrats views, I just do not in any way, shape, or form support their alleged findings with regards to the area of gun control. I agree with you completely that some people are simply not responsible enough to own firearms. But as you yourself stated, some of those people should not be allowed t own vehicles either. We are not banning cars are we? And yet drunk drivers kill more children, adults, whatever, each year than legal firearms. I simply propose that banning guns makes about as much sense to stop criminals as banning cars stops drunk drivers. We go after the offenders in one instance but the tool in another? That same car gets normal law abiding citizens to and from work, church, the lake etc. Same can be said for a firearm. I merely ask that people for one brief moment in time use a little sound judgement and consider the thought of criminal control not gun control. The facts do not lie. Politicians in DC, (sorry 99% Democrats) continue to pass laws they have proven time and again they do not enforce. I could go on and on, but I'll stop now. I just wanted to address this and as I said, from here on out, unless asked or prompted, I will not voluntarily ramble on about my political opinions.

 

[Ken Neeley]

...but Rob, I really look forward to your ramblings everyday!!!

 

[Rob LaMoy]

If for nothing else, I am here for your amusement Prez!!! LOL

 

[Rich Stern]

Rob, we need to level the table a bit on your counter-arguments. Most Americans who use a car spend a significant amount of time using them each day. If an equivalent number of Americans spent a couple of hours a day handling and shooting guns, we'd probably have some pretty high accidental gun-death stats, too. Including significant alcohol related issues. If enough people sky-dive, we'll have problems there, too. Volume of activity has a way of making stats pile up for activities where forces that are potentially lethal to humans are involved.



Blaming the tool: Interestingly enough, Volkswagon is now involved in a lawsuit (in NY, no less), where the wife of deceased man is suing VW for damages, despite the fact that he was legally drunk when he drove his 1989 Jetta into a tree. The plaintiff's case? The 1989 VW Jetta was inadequately engineered for crashes and the driver would still be alive if the car was built to reasonable standards. A quote from the plantiffs lawyer: "Automakers can't pick and choose who they want to protect in a crash."



Funny, right? Not according to the NY Supreme Court, which voted 6-2 to overturn earlier rulings in favor of VW.

 

[Greg Meyer]

Rich....Sarah Brady will not prevent an illegal gun or a legal gun from being misused...However, a program such as the NRA Eddie Eagle...a school based program might...on the other hand a blithering drunk behind the wheel has harmed thousands of families and we, as a society, don't advocate benning the private use of vehicles or alcohol...be careful what/which "quick fix" you are willing to subscribe to...I am not in favor of "kiddie porn"...on the other hand I would not support a ban on free speech to prevent it...



Our society is based, first and foremost on allowing all citizens the maximum amount of personal freedom...limited only where Consitutionally permitted to be restricted by government...freedom, personal freedom, is coincidental with the opportunity for abuse because free will assumes opportunity for all to choose and weighs and accepts the individual risk that accompanies the right of all to act according to their own dertermination of what is right for them...inevitably poor choices will be made by a few while most all enjoy the right to make those choices...

 

[Rob LaMoy]

Again a gross injustice and frivilous suit. The man took his own life in my opinion and I thank God he only killed himself and not some van full of kids. This woman, I'm sorry to say is someone looking for something for nothing from her former husbands stupidity. Quite frankly, a case like that should be thrown out, and the woman back charged for any costs associated with the case that tax payers would have to otherwise absorb. Sorry Rich, again I can rattle off tons of stunning facts and stats about how gun control simply does not work, but rather worsens the situation. VW, Ford, Colt, Remington, Winchester or gosh darned fridigdaire or Sony or whoever, should not be held accountable for the actions of some social mis-fit that has no place in our society in the first place. It's time we mend our bleeding hearts enough to realize are some nasty people out there, and take it for what it's worth...."it's time to thin the herd" Dennis Miller!

 

[Ken Neeley]

...and I really really hate it when people point to their wrist and ask if you have the time...I KNOW WHERE MY FREAKIN' WATCH IS BUTTHEAD...DO I GRAB MY CROTCH AND ASK YOU WHERE THE BATHROOM IS???



ok...I feel better now. Thanx again Rich for giving us this forum to vent our frustrations.

 

[Rob LaMoy]

Man Prez, you are too much!

 

[Ken Neeley]

...and another thing...I hate when people say "life's too short"...WRONG AGAIN SPORT...IT'S THE LONGEST FREAKIN' THING YOU'LL EVER DO ON THIS EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!





KEN AND MAC....BETTER THAN CRACK

 

[Ken Neeley]

...and how about when they say "you can't have your cake and eat it too"...WHY NOT??? WHAT GOOD IS A FREAKIN' CAKE IF YA CAN"T EAT THE DARN THING???



...thanx alot guys for getting me all riled up....I'm going home now.

 

[Rich Stern]

Rob, Greg, I am not arguing in favor of gun control. I am simply stating that statistical comparisons between car deaths and gun deaths are not meaningful. More Americans die from heart disease than car accidents, but I don't see anybody villifying the makers of deep fryers or corn dogs. Cars (and deep fryers, commercial airliners, refrigerators, etc.) have totally different social implications.



Greg, in fairness to Sarah Brady, she is bringing dialogue to an issue that is politically and socially important. The fact that she raises awareness will force people to examine the issues. That is very valuable to our society.



As for the VW case: I am trying to point out the complexity of the problems we face. Six jurists, highly educated, obviously respected enough to be appointed to a state supreme court, decided there is somehow merit in the VW suit. I can only explain that in one of three ways: 1) Payoff/bribe, 2) Political deal making, or 3) deeper issues within our own body of laws that defy the understanding of the common man. The last one is the one that bothers me.

 

[JEFF WHITE]

i own 4 guns and a bow,havent been hunting in over 6+ yrs.there are tooooooooo many crazies in the wood that will shoot anything that moves!!the world today is screwed up.get mad at a neighbor,shoot him,get mad at the wife,shoot here.it has become a gun controlled society.i am not for or against gun control,the waiting peroid is a good thing,do background checks on the buyers.anyone with an illegal gun,give them jail time,not a fine and a "dont do it again"!



ive seen a few diffrent things on bumper stickers,"gun control is being able to hit the target",and the"they will take my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers".i will NOT give up my right to keep and bear arms!it is in the constitution for every american to,but some extremist take it as a plan to arm themselves and wage war on people.those right wing liberals who are trying to disrupt our way of life!



just be glad you dont live in any country where it is illegal to own a gun,PEROID!!we take our way of life for granted,we have a lot of freedoms some other countries call illegal!



as what i seen of everyone who posts here,we all fish,thats a gimee,but s few of us hunt,some of us own guns and bows,and this thing we call the internet is a wonderful tool for getting the word out and your voice heard.look at all the organizations who have websites,peta,the truth,and so on.they put there propaganda out,if you wish to read it,so be it,if not,you dont have to go to that page and read it.but when these people invade your privacy,then it is a problem.they have to get there word out to everyone,they believe they are right,and everyone is wrong.



does anyone here remember jane fonda in the 60's?remember what she was called?but she is still out there,and i bet everyone who was around then has forgot about her little slip up then,right?



sorry for the long post.been a bad week so far.

 

[Rob LaMoy]

Rich,

Sorry, but I didn't buy the theory about autos killing more people because there are more of them. Some interesting stats....

in 1996 in the USA

220,000,000 firearms

only 10,744 deaths attributed equals 4 per every 1000 or 0.04%



autos in the usa in 1996

101,785,000

deaths in autos 18,662 equals 1 per every hundred or 1%

SO in recap, there are twice as many firearms as autos but they only attribute to a little over half as many deaths. That means according to your theory that using the only the numbers, if it were a matter of apples to apples, guns to be compared to autos would have to kill 22.2 million to achieve a 1% ratio. but funny, only 10,744. I'm sorry Rich but your numbers don't even come close to adding up, guns are about 400 times safer than cars and trucks so VW BETTER watch out, because I propose we ban cars first since they are so much deadlier!

 

[Rob LaMoy]

Sorry ONLY 40 times safer, typo, but ya know it IS 40 times, and the numbers are astounding and cannot be disputed, as recorded by our government agencies of ATF, and Transportation.

 

[Rich Stern]

Rob, how can guns be safer than cars? One is used primarily for transportation, the other for law enforcement, sport, personal protection, etc. If you told me it was safer to protect my home with a gun than it was to protect it with a pickup truck, I'd say you are right. Otherwise, I'd have to say the comparison is invalid.



Compare guns to knives, or mace, or any other form of personal protection.



Compare cars to buses, planes, trains and other forms of transportation.



Guns don't solve the problems that cars do (or create them), and cars don't solve the problems that guns do (or create them).

 

[Ken Neeley]

Hey guys...let's agree to disagree on this one...

By the way, don't you hate it when people lose something and say "I found it in the last place I looked"...

NO KIDDING MORON!!!! WHY WOULD YOU KEEP LOOKING AFTER YOU FOUND THE STUPID THING???

 

[Greg Meyer]

Boys and girls...Slow down...this isn't really a statistician's argument site...LOL..



What I hope is the point, is that in reality...there are very few gun deaths attributable to accidents. However, if you are one of those statistics, and it is a personal tragedy, it has a major impact on those affected. However, few if any gun control proposals directly argue statistical justifications; because they don't exist. Most are emotional arguments...keep kids safe...get the guns off the streets...etc. And, then of course, when favorable statistics are highlighted these statistics are argued away, somehow as not relevant or misleading... The facts are, those State's that have licensed concealed carry by law abiding private citizens have not had "bloodbaths" in the streets...And, gun accidents of all types have decreased drastically, coincidentally, with the adoption and implementation of Hunter Safgety courses by most states. Very, very, few gun accidents take place in the home...the majority were and are related to hunting scenarios. By the way, I don't have the numbers at my finger tips; but, if you take out "drug related" and "gang related" gun crime from the "numbers" there is, from a statistically analyzed point of view, virtually "no" "gun crime". So, if we find a way to deal with drugs and gangs to effectyively rid ourselves of those two evils...there won't be any "real" gun crime. And, as I understand the balance of the numbers, if we get rid of "sex"...the last of that almost disappears!!!! No spousal/mate/live-ins shootings and there are virtually no shootings left. My point, there are savage acts committed by people WITH a gun BECAUSE of something other than the gun. That violence will continue with or without gun control...



Rich, Rob, way back in time...from when I was a teenager till now...a span of forty years...I had one friend die from a gun accident, a kid playing with a loaded gun he found in a home office that went off and through a wall struck the homeowner's daughter in the temple...and I knew/ know of four other people, "friends", who were injured from careless handling of firearms while hunting...I have had five friends killed in car accidents...three relatives killed and I can't begin to count the number of people injured...I have been hospitalized twice from car accidents... in the five times that I have been hit hard enough to get hurt. Anecdotally, what does that mean, well I hunt, I was and am around guns "constantly"...I feel safer around those guns than I do in my truck...We live in a dangerous world...the bathroom will get a lot of people!



So much for my ramblings...Dad said, figures lie and liars figure...

 

[TrepMan]

Ken - You've GOT to start doing standup, Galagher and Carlin are about getting too old and Seinfeld has too much $$ to do the circuit. You'd get all your votes from the Drunks in the clubs while they laugh thier tushies off at your jokes!



Now i'll chime in on this gun control issue - take this from a recoving Republican turned Libertarian...



I have yet to see any law (for guns or cars) that has/will have a major impact on the illegal/unethical use of either. We have a BOAT load of laws (see tied it right to this site on the federal and state/local level that are NOT being enforced and a VERY understaffed/funded police force (again local/state/federal level) so spending more of my hard earned tax dollars even DEBATING more laws until we enforce or get off the books the existing ones will not change a thing. As you may/may not know know and read Alpharetta GA has enacted a slew of new laws (including BANNING the use of paint ball/air rifles by children - I think under 16 or 18 - with out the direct supervision of an adult) due to vandalism in one upscale subdivision. Now i'm no cop or lawer but I believe there are more than enough laws on the books to cover vandalism (reckless endangerment, public nuisance and the like) so the new laws are nothing but used to placate the folks into thinking the government is doing something.



Let's see outlawing nailclippers and sizzors on airplane (even though neither were ever used in a terrorist act) just makes me pack more stuff into my ship thru suitcase.



Outlawing cellphones while driving. Hmmm, I believe I got a ticket in the late 80's for inproper lane usage when I purposefully crossed a "gore" (striped part of a lane in the center) to get to a turn lane. If you swerve while driving whether using a cell phone, putting on makup, reading the paper - it's all the same - improper lane usage or recklass driving. So if we spend time and my $$ on laywers to create and enforce a new law that duplicates 100 already in existance it's STUPID. Next we'll HAVE To have a special law outlawing ______ (insert your favorite - eating, Drinking, writting, putting on makeup, sex...) while driving.



I'm very concerned like Rich about my kids going to someone else's house who has a gun, but can anyone truly tell me if they outlawed having guns in your house (as an example) that those idoits who today leave a loaded gun around are going to stop? I do not think so!



I'll end my LONG post on a funny topic - It took Georgia till 2 years ago to repeal the sodomy law. That means up till 2 years ago if any consenting adult (male, female or otherwise) in the privacy of thier own home performed ANY of the defintions of Sodomy (won't post them here due to the young and squeemish readers, e-mail me if you don't get the idea) you would be arrested. So over the last 100 years how many police have been peering into your bedroom to see what you do???

 

[Rob LaMoy]

Um Trep, thanks a lot for the mental picture NOT!!!!!! Only in GA!!! LOL

 

[JEFF WHITE]

and a few other states have stupid laws on the books still.and half of them are from the 1800's.no one has looked back to see if they are rediculous in todays society of same sex marrages and such.back then ,homosexuality was a basic death sentence to both,as it was against the law,nature,the bible,and so on.



i used to have a website of the stupid laws still on the books,and a few town here in pennsylvania,it is illegal to do any work on sunday,mowing lawn,washing windows,fixing your car and such was illegal and punishable to jail time and a fine.



back to the brady thing.anytime a politician or someone with high money and power thing,gets hurt,killed or otherwise,they alwys start stuff to make there lives feel inportant.oh i did this for s.a.d.d.,or m.a.d.d..a few yrs ago in n.y.,it was illegal to park on an on/off ramp o any highway,well,you all know when the rest stops get full,the trucks have to stop somewhere,well some still do,but low and behold a politicians son,plastered out of his mind gets off the interstate,plows into the back of a semi,killing himself,and hurting a few in his car,who got the full blame,the truck driver,why?because he shouldnt have been parked there,but what about the drunkin kid who hit him.if he wasnt drunk it wouldnt have happened either,right!

 

[Staci Matheis]

Darn, guys..... I just scanned back through these posts..... I've been called a lot of things before..... But "sniveling little snot nosed self informed, left wing, liberal, right stealing yahoo"? That's a first.



Rob, Please..... Take a bit of advice from an old man..... If you ever hope to "make it to the bigtime" in the Pro Fishing Game - be very careful what you say..... You just never know when one of us "sniveling little snot nosed self informed, left wing, liberal, right stealing yahoos" may be controlling the purse strings for a potential sponsor.....



me

 

[C C]

Wow Scott,



You said it much better then I could have. BRAVO!

 

[Rob LaMoy]

With all due respect Scott, as I said in an earlier post it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but I don't check my integrity at the door like a coat. If a potential sponsor was behind gun control and other right infringing movements, then he could keep his or her money, I wouldn't want it. When I DO make it to the big time, I will be able to sleep at night, knowing I didn't compromise my beliefs at all. I have nothing against Democrats. Not all democrats are for gun contol, but of the politicians that are for gun control, 95% or better are Democrats, if that made sense. You cannot tell me with a straight face, and level head, that these laws or sanctions will stop crime even in the slightest. Australia, Jamaica, England, and South Africa have PROVEN it! Sorry, I am just sick and tired of people in country telling me what is good for me by making it a law! I could have sworn this was SUPPOSED to be a free country. Yet I HAVE to wear a seat belt? Do I think it's a good idea? YESSS!!!!!! Should it be a LAW? NOOOO!!!!!!! Are there movies out there I think are garbage? Yes! But if I or you don't like them, DON'T GO SEE THEM! Don't tell the next guy he can't! I'm sorry but this seems just so simple it's sickening and yet nobody seems to get it. We are so worried about what the other guy is doing, we don't watch ourselves. And we're all victims, like this drunk kid on the highway. Sorry, he was an idiot, and what happened was a direct consequence of a decision HE made. but somehow, we have to blame everyone but ourselves! God help me (and him/her) if anyone EVER waves a dollar in front of ME telling ME to dance to his tune or else!

 

[Rich Stern]

Rob, I agree that we shouldn't need a seatbelt law. But, here's what happens when a freedom-loving guy thinks he knows better than everybody else about what's good for him in an automobile, and refuses to wear a seat-belt:



1) Gets into an accident

2) Head goes through windshield

3) Permanently disabled for life

4) Requires millions of dollars in healthcare to save his life and care for him over the remaing 50 years of his life

5) Doesn't have the means to pay for the care he needs

6) Becomes a ward of our society, because as a society, we don't have the will to say, "Tough break, loser, should have made a better choice about a seat belt"



And then the rest of us pay for his care through higher taxes and increased health insurance premiums. Who's protecting our right not to pay for that guy's stupid choices? Kinda like taxation without representation, isn't it? I didn't get to tell that guy how I felt before he indirectly decided to spend my money on his health care.



Now, if everybody agreed that we should have a law that says you get no financial assistance from any organization if you are injured in an accident while not wearing a seatbelt, then I agree, we don't need seatbelt laws. But as long as the rest of us are asked to pay for that guy's bad decisions, then I think we have a right to try to minimize his trampling on our lives.



Remember, the Bill of Rights describes our freedom as limited in a key way, which is: Not infringing on the freedom of others. That guy without the seatbelt gambles with your's and my wallet every time he starts his car.



I think you should reconsider Scott's point. Inadvertantly boycotting a sponsor because of a one person's view on a particular political issue will leave you a very lonely man. If the sponsor organization publicly takes that view, I'd say you should boycott. But not because individuals within the organization feel that way.

 

[Rob LaMoy]

OK, would somebody KINDLY explain to me WHERE we are going to draw the line? Before you know it there will be ridiculous laws on the books everywhere due to the ignorant nature of human beings. I can see it now....laws banning McDonalds because in reality the food will cause obesity, which leads to many other health issues, which the tax payers will HAVE to pay for? Then we'll have a law banning automobiles, outboards, snowblowers, weed whackers, and lawn mowers because of the exhaust by products they emmitt, thus destroying the ozone and putting toxins in the air causing health problems, unsuitable drinking water, and destroying the forests. But wait we can go solar with everything, NOPE that won't work because the battery cells required to charge have lead in them and we don't even want to start on lead, not to mention the hazardous acid in those cells, and how will dispose of them. OK, we'll go back to horse and buggy. But then we'll have to have a law that your horse can only crap on YOUR lawn or else your neighbor might endure some hardship, or slip on the manure and fall and break a leg. Where EXACTLY do we draw the line is all I am asking? As far as a sponsorship goes, any orgaization that would put a person in authority that would ("tighten the purse strings" because of my beliefs) can keep their stinkin money. There are plenty of potential sponsors out there that would not do such a thing. I will go to my grave knowing that I have done all that I can to make this a better world for my children, and they will know beyond the shadow of any doubt that their dad was no sell-out! Now, I think it's time to end this thread, so I will not revisit anymore, as it appears to have no end is sight, and I do not want to jeopardize any friendships here over a disagreement. Good day!

 

[Staci Matheis]

Rob -



It goes further than that.....



If I am a responsible person holding the purse strings for an organization - even one that publically supports your views - I am going to see your offensive, shot-gun approach as a time-bomb waiting to go off in my face. There is no way that your name will ever even get to the bottom of my list of potential representatives.



Think about what your words are doing, Rob..... You are only hurting yourself.



me

 

[Rich Stern]

Rob, I'm not offended by your views, I don't feel threatened by them, nor do I feel like our friendship should be threatened by a reasoned discussion.



Hold your views and beliefs dear, but try to always hear the other guy. Something important might get said at any time.



Let me try to reiterate Scott's view another way:



Sponsorship is about business. A sponsor doesn't pay you for your beliefs. They pay you to promote their product. Anything you do or say that might interfere with the promotion of their product is something they have to consider as a potential negative.



If a sponsor comes to you and says, "Promote our spinnerbait," and it's not your favorite spinnerbait, will you promote it? If so, you've already decided to compromise your opinion in order to earn a check. But that's perfectly ok. Just because it's not your personal favorite doesn't mean it's not worthy of your promotion. Business is about selling and profiting. Sometimes you have to put your personal preferences aside. I am not talking about compromising ethics, only opinion.

 

[Mark Hofman]

I can't fix the world's problems by myself. But what I can do is be responsible for my own actions so that I don't give anyone another reason for demanding yet another law or rule. I can also do my best to enourage others to be responsible for themselves.



The hard part about this discussion is what to do about those people who are so selfish in their actions they hurt other -- especially those who are innocent. Laws and rules are the definitions of how civilized people interact, and define the consequences of being so selfish in your freedoms that you take away the rights and freedoms of someone else.



When I taught school, I used to use this illustration:

 

[Rich Stern]

MO, great diagram! Appropriately shaded grey where our rights and freedoms overlap.



A picture is worth a thousand words. Or perhaps a thousand laws.

 

[Greg Meyer]

Rich,



Please get out your sixth grade civics book...The Bill of Rights describes very significant limitations on GOVERNMENT'S INTRUSION ON OUR RIGHTS; not as you say; "the Bill of Rights describes our freedom as limited in a key way, which is: Not infringing on the freedom of others" The BILL OF RIGHTS limits government's intrusion into our lives...Nothing in the BILL OF RIGHTS limits personal freedom. It is exactly the opposite, it protects personal freedom by telling the government where it cannot make laws or where it cannot act in a way that infringes on personal freedoms. It also retains to the people all rights not explicitly given to the government.



It is the very type of misunderstanding that you have expressed that permits our politicians to wipe out a "freedom" without the people raising so much as a whimper.

 

[Mark Hofman]

Greg:



That post and chart is mine, not Rich's. Direct the criticism at me, not him.



The bill of rights forms the circles, as you have correctly pointed out.



We have freedoms that NO ONE can take away, especially the government. But when I as a person act in my freedoms in a way which negatively affects YOUR freedoms or someone else's freedoms, what do you suggest should happen?



That same Constitution establishes the vehicle by which we, the people, decide how draw that line and shade that grey area. Government does not exist to erase a portion of the circle. It make it possible for you and for me and for Rich to live without killing or harming our neighbors.

 

[Mark Hofman]

I apologize. I should have said, "Please direct your criticism at me, not him."

 

[Ken Neeley]

Yes, let's not forget our manners!!!

But I believe Greg was referring to Rich's post above written at 9:33...

Ok, carry on now, I'm enjoying this thread.

 

[Mark Hofman]

Sorry, Greg.



I'm trying to read through several posts at once and wasn't reading this one carefully enough. Thanks, Ken, for pointing me to the correct 9:33 post.



I saw the remark about a sixth grade civics book right after my line about being a former teacher, and inserted the word "of" right after "get out".



Going back to the "Ranger" thread with another really deep thought (go look!).



MO

 

[Greg Meyer]

Mo...look up several posts...the quote is from Rich's post...If I sounded preachy and critical...to some extent it was by intent...but not "malicious"...



The Virginia Compromise that gave us the "Bill of Rights" (the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) were argued against because the opponents felt that (as has happened) even though they (those ten amendments) are explicit limitations on government, they are interpretted as the definitive list of the people's rights...



As to your ven diagram...it is a grap[hic representation of a "point" as to where government tries to regulate commerce and interaction between people... I would like to see you reword it slightly...because government should regulate those "things" where "My improper interpretation of the allowed exercise of my rights and freedoms" intrudes on "Your improper interpretation of the allowed exercise of your rights and freedoms". In that way you will not be implying that government can limit a "right" (because they cannot, that's why it is called a "right"...they can regulate privileges....but not "rights") You see I have no "right" to intrude on your "rights" thus the "improper interpretation" modifier of "allowed exercise...".



Yes, and to answer your question...BS in Political Science, MA in International Law, and JD (just don't practice) Self employed computer engineers can find (make) time to fish.

 

[Rich Stern]

Greg, I agree the the bill of rights focuses much more on the specifics regarding limiting government relative to citizen's rights. Perhaps I unfairly characterized the Bill of Rights. The words I used are not explicity represented. However, as you can see by the quotes below, it is the government's duty to protect citizens not just from intrusive government, but from intrusions by other citizens (and external powers) as well.



Article 1, Section 8:



"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."



Article 3, Section 2:



"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--<B>between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.</B>"



(note: Bold emphasis is mine)



Article 4, Section 2:



"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

 

[Rich Stern]

Oh, and yes, I'm sorry, I did mean the U.S. Constitution. Please forgive the use of the term "Bill of Rights." The entire body of the Consitution plus all amendements (as well as case law) define our rights as citizens.

 

[Mark Hofman]

Greg:



Never argue with an attorney. It costs too much. I no longer teach (Hmmmm...wonder why??? Could it be events like Columbine had an influence?), so I will bow to your expertise.



Please keep in mind that my ven diagram was not invented to explain the U.S. Constitution, but why my seventh grade classroom had rules defining expected conduct and behavior. "Yes, Jimmy, you have rights. But when exercising your rights result in Buddy's head being split open and his parents being called away from work to take him to the hospital, we have a problem."



MOFish - BSEd in Secodary Ed., Field Endorsement (Dual Major in History, Political Science) with a minor in general social sciences, but the only class I took in Constitutional Law was in my 2nd year and it was a 400 level class. Bit off more than I was ready for.



BS - Bull****er

MA/MBA/MS - A MASTER at being a BS-er

BSEd - Can teach someone ELSE to be a BS-er

Ph.D. - A BS-er or Master BS-er, only Piled Higher and Deeper

Th.D. - Thinking Deeply about being a BS-er

 

[Greg Meyer]

Ahhhh...and I never taught or practiced...just kept pushing that Black & White...Let Nixon's LEAP $$$ send me to school while I drew my salary...Got tired of being paid to show up a places like Jamey's Front door to deal with Jameys...Quit "running" the Dept.'s Tactical Response team after 8 1/2 years when my "20" rolled over with most of my teeth intact and almost all of my hair gone...went back to school...couldn't spell engineer and now I are one!!!



So, on a day like today...home "recuperating" from a "health engineer" (My Doc's name for himself in my presence...I fix his computers) I play with my puter and wish I was fishing...

 

[Mark Hofman]

Funny you bring up the "Dept." At one point in my life, I had almost ended up as a state trooper, and then as an urban cop. Woulda ended up KIA because I'm attention deficit, so here I am doing fundraising. Life's funny that way.