Brady Bunch IN INDIANAPOLIS on Saturday

[Archbishop]

Thanks. Video is uploading. I just wish they hadn't cut me off and I wish they showed more of us. I don't like hogging the spotlight. I wasn't even planning to be on camera.

Interesting camera angle though.

PLease provide the link to the Youtube video. I'd like to see it.

 

[NewsShooter]

Thanks. Video is uploading. I just wish they hadn't cut me off and I wish they showed more of us. I don't like hogging the spotlight. I wasn't even planning to be on camera.

Interesting camera angle though.

there's usually only 1min 15seconds to tell an entire story. 1/2 of that are the wind-bagging reporters talking, the other 1/2 is split between 5-10 second snippets of the interviews.

do you remember who the camera-person was? was he a blond, Opie-looking younger guy?

 

[K_W]

It's still uploading. Unfortunatly I don't have a capture card so I had to film it off the TV with my digital camera at it's highest resolution so the file is huge and the sound sucks.

I will post it as soon as it is up.

 

[SavageEagle]

I didn't see it... I tried to watch but there were issues outside so I must have missed it. I can't find it on their website either! Did they only show you or did they show us both? Did they show the Q&A inside?

 

[K_W]

Here we are... No SavageEagle for some reason

YouTube - Today's "debate"

 

[Boilers]

That story amounted to background noise. Not much there. Sorry. But, at least you TRIED, they and their editing sucked.

 

[SavageEagle]

THEM ****** ******** ***********************!!!

They just can't help themselves but to make the Brady *****es look good can they????

Hey, at least I'm not on TV!

 

[K_W]

Story is up... They quoted me and attributed it to HELMKE!
"It's harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights without becoming an illegal gun owner," Helmke said

"We are all concerned about gun violence. I think the main issue we have with these people is the method of which they use," Helmke said.

Gun violence debate comes to IUPUI - WTHR | Indianapolis

 

[henktermaat]

Good job! at least they were faced with opposition.

 

[public servant]

My biggest complaint was that Mr. Stover or a representative of the IUPUI Students for Concealed Carry on Campus was not interviewed.

 

[K_W]

My biggest complaint was that Mr. Stover or a representative of the IUPUI Students for Concealed Carry on Campus was not interviewed.

That's because they would lend credibility to our side. Can't have that can we?

 

[SavageEagle]

That's because they would lend credibility to our side.

EXACTLY! At least they quoted you and not me. I wasn't being very nice about it I don't think.

Did they even interview those two?

 

[K_W]

EXACTLY! At least they quoted you and not me. I wasn't being very nice about it I don't think.

Did they even interview those two?

The campus guys arrived after they interviewed us, but once they did arrive they conveniently forgot to interview them.

EDIT: BTW a better quality but smaller video is now up on WTHR's site

Gun violence debate comes to IUPUI - WTHR | Indianapolis

 

[wag1911]

My biggest complaint was that Mr. Stover or a representative of the IUPUI Students for Concealed Carry on Campus was not interviewed.

Agreed, they were not concerned about our side of the issue in my opinion, or they would have interviewed our representative.

 

[wag1911]

Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but if she writes a balanced article, the email I sent her will reference some of this:

Heather,

Some of the things on the gun ban side of the issue were not able to be rebutted because of time constraints. One of the most over rated arguments that the Professor used tonight was that countries with more guns typically have more gun suicides. However, he skips the cause and effect because it does not support his position.

Statistically, there is no causation to this argument. If this were the case then Japan, which has very strict gun control (read - almost no guns), has double the per capita suicide rate as the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Note that these people have just found other ways to commit suicide. So the availability of guns has had no effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan

People who want to commit suicide do so with whatever means are available. In the U.S. that happens to be firearms, but the suicide rate would not go down if guns were taken out of the equation. (hanging, jumping, pills, slitting wrists, etc.)

Britain has found the same issue with crime. They banned handguns and many other long guns, yet their violent crime rate since that ban has skyrocketed. Criminals are able to get guns through illegal means (just as they do here) and are using knives and baseball bats when they cannot. The only difference is the citizens are not able to adequately defend themselves there as they are in many states in the U.S.

As for .50 caliber rifle bans, as I told you, criminals don't generally buy or steal $4,000+ weapons to rob a 7-Eleven or break into a house. There just aren't enough of them and it would make more sense to buy something that weighs less than 20 pounds!

50 cals are used for elk, caribou, and moose hunting and have long range capability. The reason why the Brady campaign targets 50 cals is because they are trying to divide the public from gun owners with as little opposition as possible. Remember, not many gun owners own one because they are expensive. By stating that the 50 cal could be used as a sniper rifle, and because of the publicity surrounding the Beltway sniper case, they have had some success in demonizing the rifle in more anti-gun states like New Jersey. This is just the latest tactic of the Brady campaign to demonize and ban specific weapons one-by-one. 50 cals to start and incrementally ban all guns. In full disclosure, military snipers use 50 cals, but they use smaller caliber rifles as well, depending upon the mission.

BTW, caliber refers to the diameter of the bullet if you did not know.

Nevermind that John Allen Muhammad did NOT use a 50 cal, but rather a STOLEN Bushmaster XM-15 rifle (223 cal) to murder people at distances far less than that of a typical sniper. [A good military sniper can take out a target at nearly a half of a mile, Muhammad likely never pulled the trigger at any more than 100 or so yards and wouldn't have been skilled enough to be called a sniper, though the media latched on to that moniker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

Something you should realize is that the Brady campaign has changed it's name several times over the years because it receives very little public support [did you notice the lack of people on their side of the issue; our side only learned about this conference one day ago and still had 10-15 people] and is trying to revamp it's image as well as attempt to convince people that it has moderated it's message (Handgun Control Inc, Violence Policy Center are just two of the other names it has used). The original mission of the Brady Campaign was to ban all handguns PERIOD, and there is no evidence that they have changed that position despite their name changes and image makeovers. Handguns are the most portable & capable defense weapons available to citizens wanting to protect their families.

The Brady campaign receives the bulk of it's funding via billionaire George Soros through other organizations such as the Tides Foundation. It's had little support from the people. They have been unable to convince most people that banning handguns or any other weapon will reduce crime - the stats tell just the opposite. During the Clinton era, the Brady campaign supported the so-called 'assault rifles' ban in the 1994 Crime Bill. The 'assault weapons' section of the bill did nothing to deter crime and only made it more difficult for legal gun owners to obtain certain firearms. In fact, under those laws, only one federal prosecution was made in 10 YEARS. So that is why you'll hear pro-gun groups say we need more enforcement of the laws already on the books, rather than more regulations that just harass legal citizens!

Lastly, Paul Helmke misled the crowd. I was correct in stating that there are more than 22,000 gun laws at the city, county, state, and federal level. You can look this up in Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America,Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimate and reported via James Wright, Peter H. Rossi, Kathleen Daly, 1983. If gun control worked, then we should be free of crime, but the research concluded that the Federal government determined that no criminal that attacked a police officer was “hindered by any law."

Haynes v. United States (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment.

Hope that helps you to write a balanced article. If you have any questions or would like to discuss more specific gun related issues/statistics, let me know and I will either help you, or put you in touch with someone more knowledgeable than myself.

 

[Roadie]

I commented on the WTHR article. However:

Message awaits moderator approval

Wonder how long it will take, if ever, to bet "approved"?

Edit: This is what I posted, let's see if it gets changed in any way..

I have to say, I am not impressed by your editing.
"It's harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights without becoming an illegal gun owner,"
We are all concerned about gun violence. I think the main issue we have with these people is the method of which they use,"

Those quotes were NOT Helmke! Those quotes belong to the pro-2nd Amendment gentleman you interviewed.

I wish it had been pointed out that those of us who ARE gun owners, and posses our Indiana License To Carry Handgun are ALSO anti-gun violence. More gun laws, however, are not the answer. The percentage of crimes committed by legally Licensed gun owners are very very small. (for example, in Texas for the year 2007 less than 1% of all criminal convictions were for those citizens that had a TX Permit to Carry.)

The answer is enforcing the laws we already have. It is already illegal to commit a crime with a gun, making it MORE illegal is not going to change anything.

As for the supposed gun show connection, why would a criminal go to a public place and pay close to retail price for a gun, when they can go to the street corner in relative anonymity and buy a stolen gun for pennies on the dollar?

If all the money being spent on fighting against law abiding gun owners were instead spent on adding police officers, setting up local crime watches, etc THEN we could start to make progress.

Stop fighting against law abiding gun owners, and start fighting WITH us to make this city, state and country safer for all of us. We do live here too!

 

[Yamaha]

Wouldn't this be a great place to hold an OC/CC event?

phail.......iupui campus.....classified as a no weapons school zone


sounds like a fantastic way to land a night in the county slammer and would be just the type of material the brady dimwits would like to use. Best answer, what we did 2 years ago. Empty holster protests for concealed carry on campus. We organized nationwide, had fobus holsters for discounts, everything

 

[Chefcook]

I am so sick and tired of the way they spread propaganda and misinform the general public. They twist the facts or just out and out lie to try and meet an ends to their means. They have no honor. They are not for the people. They will not stop until we have nothing left. We can only blame ourselves as we do nothing. Waiting for the time when you are so desperate that you must act seems a poor strategy to me...

 

[SavageEagle]

The only thing I really have left to say would get me most likely flamed, banned, labeled a kook, what have you.

I will say I fear for our future. Evil is here and more evil is coming. If any of you get the Indy Defender's emails you'll know what all I have left to say.

 

[SavageEagle]

I will say this. I had planned to help Heather at the Indy Star to get her some info for her article. I don't think in good faith I can do that. I do have her email and plan to write her tomorrow. I can't do it tonight. I'm afraid she would hate me. I'll have to calm down and stop drinking...