18 thoughts on “Sarah Brady dead?”

1. “I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction.” – Clarence Darrow

2. You must fight fire with fire. Her side does it all the time. I like Knukledraggin said. Eff her I’m still alive and I still have my guns. Can’t win playing nice if the other side does not play nice.

3. I forgot in my comment, I clearly remember how they were gleeful when Charlton Heston passed away. They took pot shots at him all the time when he was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. Prime material on SNL. So again, screw her and her family. I take it personal when some d-bag tries to remove my Constitutional rights.

4. You can take the high road CZ. As for me, I say good riddance to bad rubbish. Life is very precious, but not all life is equally precious. Sara Brady was an enemy of freedom, and the world is a far better place for that would-be tyrant’s absence.

   Speaking of Chuck Heston, today is the anniversary of his death in 2008. The world is a smaller place for his passing. He wasn’t perfect (he signed a gun control letter to DC in his younger days), but he was a fantastic actor, and he seemed to have figured it our correctly on guns before he passed. I miss Heston.

5. Calls for a whisky, and i mean the good stuff!

6. I’m glad she’s history.

7. I agree that it isn’t very classy to celebrate the death of a political opponent, or use the occasion to exploit an agenda.

   Sarah Brady encountered some terrible family tragedy, and I don’t envy her that at all. It’s unfortunate that she reached the wrong conclusion about what caused or may have prevented that tragedy.

   This is America, and she was as entitled to voice her opinion and lobby for it, as I am to voice mine. More and more often, it seems like there is a trend to shout down or shame the voices of dissenting opinions. To me, this is a very worrisome trend.

   • Very well put.

   • “More and more often, it seems like there is a trend to shout down or shame the voices of dissenting opinions. To me, this is a very worrisome trend.”

     Thank social media and the phenomenon of “discourse” without consequences or having to actually be in the same room.

8. She did not reach the wrong conclusion after her husband was shot. She was a anti-gun activist back in the 1960s/early 70s. She merely resumed her march to destroy the US Constitution. I certainly don’t “shout down or shame the voices of dissenting oinions”. That is what the PC leftist do. I will certainly call them. Taking away a right, enshrined in the US Constitution, is just evil. I got no qualms peeing on her grave. So she died. Big deal.

   • Are you Dale Carnegie? Because you clearly know how to win friends and influence people.

     • Well, really, the post was loaded with snark because when I said “some people” it linked to the article, implying that she, Sarah Brady, was one of those exploitive types.

     • First, people promoting gun control are not my friends. Secondly, I have seen and fought against gun control starting back in the 1960s. With rare exception, you do not “influence” them. That gap is as big as the Grand Canyon. It cannot be bridged for the most part. I don’t need “friends” from that side. I need them to STFU and leave the US Constitution the hell alone. You cannot reason with leftist PC mindless robots. They are what they are. Fascist bent on control. They need it. They crave it.

       ETA- CZ, sorry for the Pissinmatch with the glib know it all.

       • I agree with you that “leftist PC-minded robots” cannot be made to change their minds. They are as entrenched in their belief as you are in yours. And I share your opinions, FWIW.

         The war will not be won by the entrenched parties on either side banging their heads against each other in a fruitless effort to change opinions. It will be won by helping those individuals in the undecided middle to form the correct opinions. Being the loudest, most obnoxious person in the room is not a sound strategy for influencing the undecided.

         You, sir, are not the advocate we need or want, or the role model for gun owners that we want majority America to think of.

         But thanks for your donations to the NRA.

         • I never once claimed to be an “advocate” nor do I care if you don’t “want or need” me. You want to be an “advocate” go knock yourself out.

           Also my work for preserving the Second extends far beyond the NRA. I have worked and given a lot of time and money to politicians that supported the Second and helped defeat a Dem US Rep (a close bud with Clinton) with pro second Bill Flores. And currently I prefer the GOA. Compromise does not work. Meet a leftist fascist half way. Then they want you to do it again. And again. Soon you are immaterial.

     • Peter, I find it interesting (and duplicitous) that you criticized some unnamed and unidentified “others” in your initial post for supposedly voicing their opinions and then being shouted down, when your next post was nothing but a sarcastic and childish snipe at Crippled up for expressing his opinion. Crippled up is entitled to express his opinion without concern for whether you’ll like him, and your snipe added absolutely intellectual to the conversation.

       We don’t owe Sarah Brady any sympathy of well-wishes just because she experienced a tragedy. Hitler lost a girlfriend to suicide. I don’t give a rat’s patoot about either tyrant. And the only difference between the two is that one lacked power and the other possessed it. Sarah Brady would have (had she the power) stripped the God-given rights of a free people and disarmed them. She was an enemy of freedom, and no one need mourn the loss of a would-be tyrant like her. Notice I said no one need mourn … if you want to mourn her passing, or feel sympathy for her, you’re free to do so (see: no one’s shouting you down). But … people with different views have a right to express them, and to make their points in opposition to Sarah Brady (or you).

       • I take your point. The Dale Carnegie comment was meant to be humorous, in response to C-U’s “peeing on her grave” remark. In hindsight, I can see how it could be taken as snarky. I don’t, however, view it as any attempt to shut down the conversation or to imply that C-U isn’t entitled to his opinion.

         Your comparison of Sarah Brady to Hitler is a little heavy-handed (but most comparisons to Hitler are). That said, I do agree with you that a past personal tragedy doesn’t entitle anyone to future sympathy or forgiveness for an objectionable political stance.

         I’m not a Sarah Brady apologist (far from it), nor do I mourn her passing. My point–which I hope my most recent response to C-U makes more clear–is that throwing profanity in the direction of a dead woman, or “pissing on her grave” does not help our cause.

         The battle for our 2nd Amendment rights is a fight for the hearts and minds of undecided middle Americans. If we portray ourselves as angry internet trolls who loudly celebrate the death of a political opponent, and disparage her even in death, we aren’t going to win many converts. Logic and reason are on the side of expanded 2nd Amendment rights. Guns are cool. By being level-headed and introducing undecided people to the world of shooting in a non-threatening way, we will win far more converts.

         I’m glad that “Crippled Up” and you and I are all on the same side of the 2nd Amendment issue. You’re not my “opponents.” I am just being honest in saying that I’d be embarrassed if “Crippled Up” was taken to be the spokesperson for gun owners.

         In the debate for gun freedoms, we can win on the merits. We can attack the anti’s arguments, without resorting to attacking them personally. Once we fall into grave-pissing, shouting-down, and name-calling, we’re no better than our opponents.

         If the Dale Carnegie joke was an example of that in your mind, than I assure you that wasn’t my intention. Aside from that one remark, however, I hope you’ll agree that I’m keeping the discourse civil.

         • Peter,

           Before I begin my response, I want you to know I’m not attacking you. Sometimes tone comes across differently in a blog response (or sometimes it doesn’t come across at all, so we impose our own perceived tone on the response). I’m trying to get you to see things a bit differently, and appreciate the value of all views from our pro-gun community.

           With that being said, as a preliminary matter, I appreciate you recognizing (and conceding) the sarcasm of the Dale Carnegie statement. But my disagreement with you is more than just about that. In your April 8 3:40 PM post you also told CU: “You, sir, are not the advocate we need or want, or the role model for gun owners ….” You couldn’t be more wrong about in saying that, and here’s why:

           First, you and I probably take a more moderate approach than CU when talking to non-gun owners about our love for guns (although if you read my initial comment, I’m probably closer to CU than you in some respects), but the pro-gun community needs (not should, but needs) to welcome all lawful pro-gun voices. The community is too small (whatever size it is) to turn away advocates who believe in the God-given rights of weapons ownership and self-defense against individuals and tyrant organizations. We can’t afford to turn on our own. But we frequently do — just like the Republicans in Congress, we form a circular firing squad every time someone says something a little off mainstream (and I’ll come back to the issue of mainstream in a moment).

           Additionally, when we do turn on our own, we provide ammunition for the anti-gun side. We give them the opportunity to divide us, and tell the neutral population, “See, even the pro-gun community thinks ‘those guys’ are nuts.” You NEVER see the left, and the anti-gun part of it, turn on their own. We should stop doing it too.

           Furthermore (and here I’m going to come back to the “mainstream”), people like you and I — while we may convince some mildly pro-gun, but non-gun-community people in the short term, to support us — do not shift the philosophical window on guns. Radical thought tends to follow a distinct pattern the more people are exposed to it: people initially see it as crazy, then they see it as “merely” radical, then they see it as “not my opinion, but …,” then they see it as one version of acceptable. To borrow from Glenn Beck (although he didn’t make it up either), radical pro-gunners shift the Overton Window to the right, whereas all we moderates do is convince a few mostly-moderate people in the short-term. Both sets of people — the perceived radical, and the perceived moderate — have a place in making the pro-gun argument. And each succeeds on a different, but equally important level. In short, there is a place at the table for all lawful views. We don’t help each other when we make snarky comments and say patently hostile things to one another just because we don’t hold the exact view expressed.

           On a tangential note, I don’t think my comparison of Sarah Brady and Hitler are extreme, and I’d offer this that you may not have considered:

           The left is populated by people who actively talk about murdering us. In fact, I see all over the blogosphere where anti-gunners talk about how we should all be shot — either with out own guns, or by the police when they come to seize our guns. Additionally, people on the left have frequently serious discussed the need to murder tens of millions of people (starting with disarming or killing gun owners). You can search YouTube and the Blaze for the FBI informant who attended a meeting of left-wing professors who openly discussed the need to liquidate about 25-30 million of us to achieve their goals. Furthermore, these kinds of comments and blog posts are mentioned by the so-called “mainstream” left in their own discussions (mentioned, but never denounced). I take it very seriously when people talk about murdering me or my children because we stand in the way of their utopian fantasy world (a world which ALWAYS descends into mass murder). Sarah Brady was an active part of the hard-wing left in this country. I don’t think it’s the least bit of a stretch to link her to Hitler — especially when she wanted to disarm us in the face of this kind of talk. I’ll grant you that Sarah Brady would think the comparison was over the top, but then so did a lot of Germans, who thought those kinds of comments were over the top about Hitler. There is evil in this world, and Sarah Brady was an active part of that evil. I’ll piss on her grave with CU (but CU, we need to go at night … and no pictures).

Comments are closed.