Talk:Brady Campaign/Archive 1

Brady Act
There is already a separate section on the Brady Act. I think that it is redundant to have all that information in here, unless it is here for propaganda value. This article should only talk about the Brady Campaign itself, and nothing more. Maybe a link to the brady act, but that should be it. -- Dullfig 04:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Removed redundant information.  Yaf 06:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, we should excise the middle 4 paragraphs, pretty much. Yaf, you're killing me with that 8,000 number :-).  To suggest that the Brady Law permanently stopped only 8,000 people from buying a gun is laughable.  Even if some of the over 1,000,000 refusals were eventually overturned (due to the very dubious claim of mistaken identy - come on!)the number is still probably much close to the 1 million mark.  At least come up with a some verifiable data or source instead of just specualtion. Cramz32 15:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Have found a number in a GAO report for 199,720 denials over a 35 month period. Added this, along with the break-outs of why, and we now have verifiable numbers.  Looks like the  number of initial denials is somewhere around 65,000 to 67,000 per year.  Approximately 22% are overturned on appeal, but it appears that most who are denied don't bother to appeal.  Wading through the appeal paperwork is not likely to be a popular thing to do.  Yaf 17:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yaf, I'm glad you linked the GAO report, but I guess you misread the data about reasons for denial. I have repaired the info on the article.  About 64% of the denials were for felony convictions, which you lumped into "other reasons like paperwork errors."  In any case, I fixed that portion.  Now, how do you come up with the 22% overturn rate?  Nothing along those lines exists in the GAO report you cited.Cramz32 20:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For the 22% rate, see page 3 of the following different reference:   Yaf 21:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think it might be a semantics issue here, 22% overturn rate refers only to those that have been appealed. In fact, the GAO report I cited put that rate even higher perhaps because it includes state and FBI denials and appeals.  But you have to admit that the vast majority, indeed almost 95% of denials are not overturned, right?  Whether it be the fear of the paperwork, failed appeals, or simply the realization the appeal would fail, most denials hold up.Cramz32 21:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, yes. The later reference is more germane, I think, because the higher number in the later reference is likely more indicative of the current state of affairs. Of course, I personally suspect that the reason for the 95% number is that most denied individuals simply opt for a private sale purchase instead of messing with the paperwork, despite having approximately a 1 in 3 chance of getting a denial overturned on appeal. Yaf 21:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You may be right, who knows, I'm fine with your lastest edits BTW and don't plan on making any myself for a while, though I DO feel better informed.Cramz32 22:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I found the denial data from the GAO and added it to the article. Seems that of the 916,000 denials between 1999 and 2004, 48,000 were reversed on appeal.  That's just over 5.2%.  So, in that time almost 95% or 868,000 of the denials held up.  I appreciate the fact that the appeals process might be difficult for some, but facts are facts. Cramz32 21:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Section on tactics
So exactly how am I mis-representing the facts? is it not a fact that a member of Brady Campaign has taken uppon itself to go modify articles pertaining to gun-control issues, to make them POV? -- Dullfig 19:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to have a section on the M.O. of the group, however, let's make it encyclopedic... It has much more impact that way...  The Deviant 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, let's try to keep this a happy place! It's too much effort, otherwise :) Cramz32 19:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, the operative in question has JUST NOW modified the article on the US constitution, YET AGAIN !! -- Dullfig 19:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Guess I'm not sure why a "Brady operative" can't make changes to articles if they think they are valid. Is it any different than you making changes?  Or, is it their anonymity that bothers you? Cramz32 20:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Both; and the info in question is blatant POV; this will lead to an edit war. Dullfig

Confused with National Coalition to Ban Handguns
The Brady Campaign was founded as The National Council to Control Handguns in 1974. No matter how much you wish it were founded with the word "ban" in it's title, it's simply not true. If you insist on making up a history for an organization you clearly know nothing about, at least provide some historical proof of your spurious claim.


 * I guess that the Congress of the United States are a bunch of morons, and got the name wrong, huh? take a look a the congressional record. Seems that YOU are trying to change history.. Dullfig 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My friend, I'm afraid you did not link me to a Congressional Record site as you had hoped but instead to a a site called www.guncite.com, a virulently pro-gun website. In any case, you're just confused.  There was a group called the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.  They are now known as the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence.  The Brady Campaign is a completely different organization.  Similar names though, so I can see how you slipped up.  In any case, I hope this will clear up the confusion. Cramz32 20:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * hmmm. ok. Dullfig 20:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have a source showing the original name as other than National Coalition to Ban Handguns, then please cite it, and we can mark the original name as disputed. Otherwise, I do not understand the issue.  Wikipedia must have verifiable facts, not some revisionist history. Yaf

20:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Have revised the article. That is what I get for reading too much in a hurry. Those names are just too similar. Please accept my apologies.  Yaf 20:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The organization's web site for one  There is not a dispute that the National Coailtion to Ban Handguns existed, it just never became Handgun Contol, Inc. or the Brady Campaign.  That group became the Coailtion to Stop Gun Violence .  I can't understand why this would be disputed, they are two completely separate organizations. Cramz32 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The National Review claims that it had "Ban" in the title. Hmmm.  Have put both claims in for now, as this is the most NPOV.  Yaf 20:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The National Review article you linked specifically says "One such organization, The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, was originally named The National Coalition to Ban Handguns." In other words, not Handgun Control/Brady.  Read the article again it should clear it up for you. Cramz32 20:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Have revised the article. That is what I get for reading too much in a hurry. Those names are just too similar. Please accept my apologies.  Yaf 20:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries Yaf, full disclousre is always best. All the name changing makes it really confusing.  Seems kind of of silly to me.Cramz32 20:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I know their are out there people that wish they had never so blatantly let the cat out of the bag, and acutally put the purpose of the organization in the name itself; but you cannot re-write history by trying to change the name in an encyclopedia. Just because you don't like that it says ban handguns (which incidentally is the real purpose even today) you can't just change the name to something you like. PLEASE STOP CHANGING THE NAME. Dullfig 19:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"National Committee to Control Handguns"?! Curious that such a name is unknown to Google. &mdash;Tamfang 23:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, it's Coalition not Committee. 37 Google hits with Control, seven hundred with Ban.  &mdash;Tamfang 03:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What was enacted in 1993?
The relations between various pieces of legislation is unclear. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act says that act included the Federal assault weapons ban. This page, until I fiddled with it perhaps prematurely, said the AWB was part of the Brady Bill (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act). I hope someone can sort it out! &mdash;Tamfang 18:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

AWB passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Brady Bill passed in 1993.

Remove info on MMM?
Would anyone be opposed to removing the bullet points (har har) on the MMM from this article? It is not needed since that info should be available at the MMM article... No? The Deviant 23:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. No need for redundancy.  Yaf 01:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. The Deviant 15:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
Perhaps some of the information can be moved to below the contents under the headings? Also, I don't think this is a stub anymore. BBGun06 00:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

POV cleanup
I took out the statement below as it is uncited and very POV. One can not damage a law. Nor by complying with it can one reduce it's efficacy.
 * The ban was damaged by gun manufacturers who either worked to circumvent the law by altering certain prohibited features and changing the name of their firearms, or, alternatively, who responded to the changes required in new gun laws by providing what was required by legislators, depending on one's point of view.

Just tacking on a counter claims seems more odious to me than just removing the unnecessary sentence. L0b0t 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on the above, but your last few edits crossed into adding your own POV. Hence my revert.  We need to accept that this organization is what it says unless we have a NPOV source to the contrary. -MrFizyx 15:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Show me one thing in the AWB that wasn't cosmetic. Rate of fire, muzzle velocity, anything.  All the classifiers were cosmetic, does it look scary, better try to ban it.L0b0t 15:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I need to show you anything. This is not the page to redefine assault weapon or debate the merits of the the Federal assault weapons ban. -MrFizyx 15:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct it is not the place to do those things. I was looking for a counter to my contention that all of the classifiers are cosmetic.  They are, so why can't we say so?L0b0t 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No such "contention" has any place in this article. -MrFizyx 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also the cited source says nothing about the founder's violent past.L0b0t 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I gather he was mugged at gunpoint in Chicago. I admit that the details seem a bit sketchy.  If I encounter a decent source I'll add it, but the current source is enough to identify him as a "victim of gun violence," and I see no reason to remove this. -MrFizyx 15:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is the cite for this? The cited source makes no mention of a mugging.  I would also posit that unless you have been shot, you are not a victim of GUN violence, you are just a victim of violence.L0b0t 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your claim that one is not a victim of gun violence unless one has bullet holes. That seems a bit extreem, but if we can find a neutral source that describes whatever happened, we can summarize the incident without needing to argue over such definitions. -MrFizyx 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If one gets slapped is one a victim of hand violence? How about if one gets cut, knife violence?  If you take a cream pie to the face is it cream violence or pie violence?  Maybe it's clown violence if pied by a harlequin?  I smell the sour taint of a weasle word in "gun violence".L0b0t 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) Hmmm... I think that if any of the above were forced at gun point many would say the victim is a victim of gun violence. Most legal systems make special cases for assault with a deadly weapon. Again, find an NPOV source for whatever happened. If it is more accurate to state that he is a victim of aggravated assault and battery, then that is what the article should read. We should be as factual as possible and cite the best sources possible. -MrFizyx 16:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This para needs to go it makes little sense as it trying to compare arrests with convictions. End para.L0b0t 15:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the Government Accounting Office, "as of July 1995 a total of seven persons (nationally) had been successfully prosecuted for making false statements on the Brady handgun purchase form." For comparison, the same report reveals that in 30 randomly-selected jurisdictions over March 1994 through January 1995, a total of 441,545 applications were processed, of which 15,506 were initially denied, for a 3.5% denial rate. Data from 2004 shows that an estimated 8,000 persons were arrested from 1999 to 2003 for an outstanding warrant or submission of false information on an application, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE, formerly BATF).
 * It seems that the above is really information relavant to Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and not very informative about the organization itself. I for one am OK with the removal. -MrFizyx 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Brady act
I took out the info below as it has to do with the Brady act itself and not the group that the article is about.
 * Since 1994, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports that the Brady Act has stopped more than 1,000,000 people from purchasing modern handguns on the grounds of a criminal record or other prohibited status. In general, half of the denials were made by state and local agencies and half by the FBI.  From 1999 through 2003, BJS reports that "58 percent of the denials by state and local agencies were for the applicant's felony conviction or indictment, 13 percent for a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction or restraining order, and the remainder for other reasons."

According to the Government Accounting Office, "as of July 1995 a total of seven persons (nationally) had been successfully prosecuted for making false statements on the Brady handgun purchase form." For comparison, the same report reveals that in 30 randomly-selected jurisdictions over March 1994 through January 1995, a total of 441,545 applications were processed, of which 15,506 were initially denied, for a 3.5% denial rate. Newer data show that an estimated 8,000 persons were arrested from 1999 to 2003 for an outstanding warrant or submission of false information on an application, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE, formerly BATF).

The immediate question is what changed this arrest/conviction rate, from an insignificant total of 7 over 17 months to over 8,000 individuals over four years, in just four years, from 1995 to 1999? Gun rights activists contend that the key factor that changed was the Lautenberg Amendment, passed September 30, 1996, that added those convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to the list of prohibited purchasers. The amendment also bars from handgun ownership those subject to a current restraining order "from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner". For example, if a soldier who slaps her husband, even if 10 years prior to the passage of the Lautenberg Amendment, was ever convicted, she can no longer legally own or handle guns, even as a soldier, nor can she legally buy a handgun. Similarly, by this same amendment, if she simply fills out a Brady form to buy a handgun, and simply forgets about or intentionally lies about her prior misdemeanor conviction, she has automatically committed a felony. Some contend that it was this factor alone which changed the number of arrests and convictions over the span of just a few years. (See Firearm Owners Protection Act for details on the Lautenberg Amendment being declared unconstitutional in 1999, in one Federal court. This one case was reversed; see U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)).

Gun-control advocates believe the Brady Law has lowered crime and saved lives by denying over 1,000,000 handgun purchases. However the number of permanently denied handgun purchases under the Brady Law is much smaller. Data from the Government Accounting Office indicate that over a 35 month period from November 30, 1998 through October 7, 2001, a total of 199,720 denials occurred, of which 63.6% were for Felony Convictions, 13.9% were for Domestic Violence Misdemeanors, 9.1% were for other criminal history, 5.0% were for drug abuse, 3.8% were for Domestic Restraining Orders, 2.8% were for Fugitive Warrants, 0.4% were for Mental Defective reasons, and the remaining 1.4% of the denials were for other reasons, such as state protection orders or illegal alien citizenship status. The Government Accounting Office reports that from 1999 to 2004, "of the 916,000 denials by the FBI and State and local agencies in the first 6 years of the permanent Brady period (i.e. 1999-2004), 138,000 (15%) were appealed. Of the appealed denials, 49,000 (36%) were reversed." In other words, between 1999 and 2004, of the 916,000 denials, almost 95% or 868,000, stood up on appeal or were not appealed by the person attempting to purchase the gun. Of course, it is not possible to extrapolate the percentage of the 85% who, once denied, and who never bothered to appeal the denial, would likewise have had their denials reversed had they simply appealed. According to the GAO, "the vast majority of disputed denials are resolved at the administrative level." 

end deleted section.L0b0t 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone, Yaf I think, rv'd this info back into the article so I've removed it again. It is not about the group HCI or whatever they are calling themselves now, but is rather about the Brady bill itself and as such should be in the article about the bill not about the group.L0b0t 02:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What is missing is a criticism section about the Brady Campain. It is needed inorder to be balanced.

Dates
The dates sound suspicicious-- The brady campaign started before he was shot?. I don;t know the correct dates. 13:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Brady Campaign" is a re-branding of NCCH and HCI. To be cynical about it, HCI head Nelson Pete Shields openly advocated banning guns to all but police, licensed security guards and permitted members of elite gun clubs, so the Bradys were brought on board as figureheads advocating "reasonable controls" when the original near-prohibitory policies advocated by Shields did not come to pass. Whether it was a true policy change or not is open to debate.Naaman Brown (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

section removed
Criticism The Brady Campaign, as a partisan and visible presence in the highly polarized U.S. firearm rights debate, has frequently drawn criticism from those who feel it falls short or fails to be sufficiently aggressive in its efforts, and those who believe the organizations' very existence and goals are repugnant, including those who see the Campaign's gun-control efforts as entirely unconstitutional.

''One of the Brady Campaign's major efforts, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, was severely derided. Gun control advocates felt the ten-year expiration would mitigate any benefits, and that the bill left too many loopholes to be effective. Critics also noted that the definition of "assault weapon" was based upon arbitrary features, such as "pistol grips", flash reduction devices, adjustable or foldable shoulder stocks, and the screw threads to attach a flash reduction device.''

I've removed this as it lacks any citations. Please re-write it is a neutral tone with proper citations.--Docg 14:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And I've put it back. The section is tagged for sources, that is much more appropriate than a wholesale removal. Homefill 21:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger discussion
I do not favor merging the two articles (i.e., Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence with this one), as they are sister organizations with different stated purposes. Although the two organizations started as one umbrella organization, they have definitely gone in different directions over the years since the split. Yaf 01:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Size of Million Mom March
Newbie here: there's a comment in the introductory paragraph about the million mom march, ie, that it was more like the "two dozen mom march". There's no way that I can see to edit this content, and it's just not a serious comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.37.49 (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've removed that. What would help though is if someone could add a source regarding any claims of the size of the march, OR just remove any such claims. -MrFizyx 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Look up the "Million Mom March" page, it has alot more info on the size of the march, its no where near 1 million. --125.239.160.44 03:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

IANSA linkage
The article on IANSA includes this: --- United States of America

Main article: Gun politics in the United States

IANSA membership in the United States includes gun control organizations such as the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence, Legal Community Against Violence and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence[15].

[15] ^ a b "IANSA: Members: North America". IANSA (2007-06-14). --- If this is a true statement, shouldn't this information be included in the Brady Campaign article?Naaman Brown (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

POV Trim
I've trimmed what I believe to be the worst of the POV, but I still think there is some subtle supportive bias inherent in the way the intro to the article is written. I would welcome comments about continuing this effort. Mintrick (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I had stepped away for a few weeks. Apparently that was a mistake. I spent a couple hours writing up a good intro section and somebody cut it into something that, frankly, read like an advertisement. You cut that so it looked less POV, which put it back how it was before I ever worked on it. I have reverted the intro section to my version. Please have a look. --aciel (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Mintrick (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
The first paragraph of the introduction contains statements that appear to be biased ("closely affiliated" and "highly restrict" (what does that mean?) and are not referenced or sourced. I will edit the text to bring it in line with Wiki's NPOV standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV. --PFS (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-gun rights?
Sorry to be nitpicky here but the way that the panel is phrased is rather loaded. I'm sure it would initiate the same reaction if the panel were split into Gun Control vs. Anti-Gun Control. Utilizing "anti" automatically connotes favorable opinion for the other side. I don't know how to edit tables specifically but I propose that we change the terminology to Gun Rights vs. Gun Control. puttypapyrus 03:10, 16 February 2006 (CST)


 * I agree. Problem fixed.  Yaf 11:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Puttypapyrus was right, and whoever later made the "Anti-gun rights" Category should also reconsider for the same reason. There is no "Anti-gun control," nor "Pro-gun rights" Category, if you really need the seperate categories why not make them sub-cats of "Gun politics advocacy groups in the United States."

That brings me to my other point, Yaf, your edit says clarification, but I say redundancy, "...political advocacy organization that does take positions on many political issues." Well, what does "political advocacy" mean? I thought I had it covered. Later -MrFizyx 20:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Political advocacy could mean either nonpartisan advocacy of the political (i.e., voting) process itself (the LWV's original position, incidentally), taking no sides, or the advocacy of particular political positions in the races themselves, such as on referendums. The impreciseness of the English language is such that we should reserve ambiguity for when it is really needed, or else clarify the point in cases such as this when clarification is needed to avoid misleading a reader. Yaf 21:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that the first part of the sentence says that they were there to support the march, I don't see where there's room for ambiguity. -MrFizyx 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We now have 2 US Supreme Court Decisions establishing gun ownership as a fundamental right, so why not use the term Anti-Gun RIGHTS when describing the bradys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Small Arms Collector (talk • contribs) 07:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Members?
How many members does the Brady Campaign have? I found this: http://www.campaignadvantage.com/services/websites/archive/ags/resources.html, but I couldn't find any information on the Brady Campaign's homepage. --62.214.195.97 20:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

HCI, VPC, etc won't release how many dues-paying members they have. They can't because the number is, I believe, extremely small. So they claim some much bigger number to make themselves more important to the media and politicians.--Davidwiz (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the Mailing List Finder source, there is less than 28,000 members/donors in the last 24 months, not the 50,500 (which is the total size of their mailing list including non-members/non-donors or those who were over 24 months ago). I submitted the change reflecting the correct numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.10.4 (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you buy the numbers from them or what happens as I didn't see any numbers there? Any idea how they managed to collect them? I'm surprised they seem to say they can split it up by Jewish or Christian contributors and say how many are male or female. Dmcq (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It says Catholic, not Christian. Even more surprising. Dmcq (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

slippery slope argument
I am concerned that the 1976 quote from Pete Shields in the "Stated Mission" section gives the wrong impression that the defunct organization Handgun Control Inc. somehow is the same as the subject of this article. Further, the sourcing seems to be draw from selective quotations from 'slippery slope argument' discussions found on the gun blogs, and not the actual source. Can anyone post a full quote from the magazine to allow checking per WP:V. At the least this passage needs NPOV rewriting to reflect the 'slippery slope' advocacy positions. Perhaps the best thing here is to put the quote in a new article about the defunct HCI organization? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Brady Campaign was simply a renaming of Handgun Control Inc, not even a reorganization, but a name change and a new figurehead. Nelson T. "Pete" Shields, chairman of Handgun Control Inc. explained his goal to The New Yorker in 1976: "'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.' --Richard Harris, 'A Reporter at Large: Handguns,' New Yorker, July 26, 1976, p. 58." Thus the source of the 'slippery slope argument' was the chairman of HCI, long before the Internet or "gun blogs" even existed. There are research tools beyond Google, such as a public library with bound magazines and Readers Guide to Periodical Literature. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks like a solid source to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Naaman Brown, you write "thus the source of the slippery slope argument was the chairman of HCI", yet the New Yorker article doesn't say this. My point is that the "slippery slope" argument surrounding gun politics should not be forced into this article as political framing tactics mirroring the gun blogs.  Indeed, the "slippery slope" character of the political argument dates well back into the Antebellum of the 19th Century, see the Singletary book ISBN 9780313245732 which describes some of this history.  Note that the opposing racial militias, parade clubs, rifle clubs, have a direct lineage to present day rifle associations and modern militia groups.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Racial militias have direct lineage to present groups? Please explain that one. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at a the history of Antebellum and Reconstruction era militia groups. The Singletary book mentioned above is a great source. The most important 2nd Amendment court case Cruikshank is a racial militia case. The negro militia were pitted against White League "rifle clubs". These rifle clubs have greatly evolved over time but their roots are a matter of fact. The NRA originated as a Reconstruction era rifle club/militia group. (See Kaufman pgs 177-178). SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That didn't answer my question. The NRA is of course a reconstruction era rifle club, but it was not a militia group (nor does Kaufman say they were) and you keep making it look like they were. What modern militia has direct lineage to those groups from the antebellum and reconstruction era groups? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Interjection the NRA was founded by Union officers to promote marksmanship because the Confederacy had better marksman and that the north did not have many skilled riflemen. --Conor Fallon (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know the point of this conversation. In any case, the NRA at the time of its creation was a paramilitary group very much consistent with the American militia tradition during that postwar period, and page 178 of the Kaufman book makes this clear.  The modern militia movement, especially the Constitutional wing, has a striking similarity to the Anti-federalist mindset during the antebellum period.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the point? You keep making it sound like the NRA is (or was) a militia and was somehow related to racists. You might not be intending that, but the way you keep phrasing it gives that impression and I'm trying to give you the opportunity to make it clear so that I (or anyone else) am not misunderstanding you. Would you prefer in the future that I just make assumptions? I read the Kaufman reference and I don't see where they'd be classified as a militia. You seem to believe that the words militia and paramilitary are interchangeable. They're not. You also made a statement about the direct lineage and I asked for an example. What is the problem with asking you to explain or provide examples? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Far afield have we wandered. The heading is slippery slope argument and the disputed statement was '''In 1976, HCI's chairman Nelson Shields stated that the long-term goal of the organization was a ban on handgun ownership,[8]. [8] Richard Harris, "A Reporter at Large: Handguns," New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 53, 58''' Disputed was whether the group Brady Campaign is/was Handgun Control Inc. and was the statement sourced to the cited source or to "slippery slope" arguments on "gun blogs". I think it has been established that NCCH, HCI and Brady were and are the same organization.

A slippery slope argument is that (a) leads to (b) leads to (c). Nelson stated his goal ((a) to slow down production and sales of handguns then (b) to get handguns registered and (c) to make possession of handguns and ammunition with very narrow exceptions "totally illegal"). Even though the "gun blogs" have mirrored Nelson's stated goals as a slippery slope argument (accepting any gun control leads to prohibition), the disputed statement relects Nelson's goals as stated in the New Yorker in a friendly interview. Surely Nelson "Pete" Shields should be considered a reliable source of his goals for HCI, no matter who has picked it up for whatever purpose.

I will point out it was Union officers who formed the NRA of America at Long Island New York in 1871 (as a response to the US rifle team losing a match to a team supported by the NRA of UK). The two NRAs (America and UK) promoted rifle practice among citizens eligible for military service, which is a militia goal, but scarcely racial, and does not make NRA rifle clubs racial militias. The founders of the NRA, like the Negro freedmen killed in the 1873 Colfax Massacre (1875 Cruikshank case), were pro-Union. A slippery slope linking NRA to "racial militias" is irrelevant to the statement of HCI Shield's slippery slope goals. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I see no evidence that the 1875 NRA was a racist militia. (It is very reasonable to guess that being located in a Union State that they were sympathetic to Union politics at the time.)  My point is that this "ban handgun ownership" sentence in this article serves to frame this article within a "slippery slope" political argument mirroring that is seen on the gun blogs.  The present day Brady Campaign is not opposed to taking away handguns from law abiding people.  To insert the 1976 "long-term goal of the organization was a ban on handgun ownership" statement is a Red Herring and violates WP:NPOV. Consistently, for a very long time now, the Brady position has been "defer to the judgments of elected officials who enact reasonable regulations on gun ownership, short of a broad gun ban, to protect the public from gun violence.".  To be NPOV, we should not mirror the gun blog disinformation trying to implicate that Brady has some secret goal of a total ban on handgun ownership.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Brady still proposes and campaigns for stricter and stricter regulations over the ownership of handguns. And that's what it's about, banning gns, not "gun violence" (a marketing ploy). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Vigilante" line
Opinions? I don't think leaving it in there is neutral, but SeanNovack says it's neutral to put in in there - after all, it's true (at least to the best of my knowledge). Edit: I'd at least like to see the "this" in "To date, there have been no documented cases of this occuring" being clarified. Are we talking about being shot for being rude? Because that's a pretty narrow set of circumstances. Or are we talking about "vigilante justice"? Because that's a lot more broad. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see the issue, but to the best of my knowledge Florida has had no confirmed cases of "vigilante justice" prepetrated by a permit holder either. If we are going to include predictions made by the Brady Campaign without any kind of historical reference or factual challange, then we are doing nothing more than including advocacy statements in violation of WP:SOAP. I have no problem with including the statements by the group, after all, it is an article on said group.  However, it is important not to leave those statements floating in a vaccuum and thereby give them undue weight by allowing them to stand unfounded. Rapier (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem here is not neutrality, but rather original research. And you certainly can source a negative.  If you can find a reliable source, for example the NRA, that says that there have been no instances of vigilantism since the law was passed, then this statement would be fine.  But what we seem to have here is that you, Sean Novak say there have been no instances, and that is not fine, since you are not a reliable source.  The fact that, to the best of your knowledge, there have been no instances, does not matter.  what counts is reliable sources.  — JPMcGrath (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that about sums up what I wanted to say. Keep or remove?  Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Leave as is for now. Personally, I think his claim is pedantic, but that isn't the point.  There is no obvious consensus and the statement is true.  It isn't "original research" to state a fact.  If I'm wrong, that's fine.  Remove the comment because of an instance that shows the Brady Campaign was correct.  Barring that, the statement is true.  The Brady Campaign made a claim, and they (so far) have been proven wrong.  Allowing the claim to stand unchallanged gives it legitimacy in that the casual reader could assume it to be correct. Rapier (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Status as a "hate group"
While there is some speculation that the establishment of the Second Amendment as an incorporated right might actually qualify the Brady Campaign to be civilly liable under some states civil rights laws, I've not yet seen an actual citation. I propose we leave the section in for now, until we can be certain one way or the other. I have added the "citation needed" flag to the appropriate section. Lwsimon (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A link from Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/25/gun-grabbers-treat-criminals-as-victims/

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center (VPC) are peddling the notion that concealed-handgun permit holders are a danger to society. Last month, the center released a report claiming that in the past three years, 166 people were killed by holders of concealed-weapon permits. A closer look at the evidence suggests that many of the so-called victims of gun violence were criminals. 8r455 (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The poor dears :( But seriously this "hate group" thing is bullshit.  There are plenty of groups that lobby against constitutional rights without getting that status.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you provide examples? I admit that I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but I'm still researching the possibility that they could incur civil liability, at the very least. Lwsimon (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Focus on the Family is opposed to abortion. Roe v. Wade ruled it to be a constitutional right.  There are plenty of court cases in which one side was held to be violating the constitutional rights of the other, and there are always people who disagree with the court.  Really, are the dissenting justices hate activists now?  Anyway, according to the current wiki article on hate groups, "A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society."  The Brady Campaign is a lobbying organization that pushes for more restrictions on a human right - it doesn't advocate violence against gun owners (pretty sure they'd lose that one :P).  While I despise the Brady Campaign and its objectives, calling them a "hate group" is dishonest.  Taking a position against a constitutional right makes you a bunch of scumbags, but it doesn't make you a hate group.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As you point out, the current Wiki article includes "hostility" towards a "designated sector of society." The Brady Campaign has most certainly espoused hostility towards both gun rights and gun owners.  Hence, they fit the definition.  As such, I support the restoration of the paragraph in question. 76.24.137.64 (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC) — 76.24.137.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * No yu. They don't support hostility towards gun owners.  They support restrictions on gun rights.  There's a fundamental difference.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you did there. “hate, hostility, or violence” was reduced to “violence” only when considering whether or not the Brady Campaign is a hate group.mcornelius (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to re-read it, especially the part where I said "They don't support hostility towards gun owners." You know, the part that you're responding to.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; that comment was misplaced. It was meant to be a reply to you comment above. Let's break down that criterion, though:
 * Hate – From Wiktionary, to dislike intensely; to feel strong hostility towards Yes check.svg
 * Hostility – From Wiktionary, belonging or appropriate to an enemy; showing the disposition of an enemy; showing ill will and malevolence, or a desire to thwart and injure; occupied by an enemy or enemies; inimical; unfriendly Yes check.svg
 * Violence is the only of these that we agree is not an issue.
 * The cited criterion for determining whether or not a group is a hate group, though, is disjunctive (“hate, hostility, 'or' violence,” not “hate, hostility, and violence”) If you're trying to make a point that the Brady Campaign explicitly argues that they feel no animosity toward gun owners and gun rights proponents but are doing it for their good (the good of the gun owners and gun rights advocates but not themselves), I'd like to see that. In the meantime, on their own website, they say “We can expect two things as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v the City of Chicago: the gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down sensible gun laws. We will continue to fight those challenges, and are confident they will continue to fail.” This is strongly pejorative language (“the gun lobby,” “gun criminals”), indicating an intense dislike (hate), ill will (“we will continue to fight”) and malevolence (“confident they will continue to fail”) (hostility (and thence hate)).
 * The problem is that hate group is a bullshit pejorative term applied by one group against the people and groups they hate in order to achieve political aims.mcornelius (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "The problem is that hate group is a bullshit pejorative term applied by one group against the people and groups they hate in order to achieve political aims." Agreed 110%.  Hence we should avoid using it except in clear-cut cases of one group hating the members of another group as individuals.  The Brady Campaign hates the NRA, of course, but that's an organization.  There's no love lost between them and gun owners, but again, I just don't see them as being on the same level as "real" "hate groups" like the KKK.  For one, "gun owner" isn't inherent to people; I could sell my guns tomorrow or give them away.  "Hate" is a pretty strong term. Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Then, find an objective qualification; the fact is that the Brady Campaign doesn't hate gun owners. They hate and agitate against gun rights advocates. Many of its most ardent supporters have guns (or their private security does). Gun owners and gun rights advocates are not mutually inclusive. I've already given examples of gun owners that support them and most of the people I know are opponents of the Brady Campaign, who don't own firearms. (Also, I'm guilty of it, too, but let's stop calling all firearms guns; most of them aren't.) The Brady Campaign goes out of its way to lobby for delegitimizing their opponents' lobby; they don't just advocate against the Second Amendment, they advocate against the First Amendment for their opponents. “Hate is a strong term.”– but that doesn't make it inaccurate. I hate people that say 110% when declaring a quantification of something that is partitive and I'm clearly hostile to your intentions here, but I'm not organized. ;D mcornelius (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't seeking to restrict someones rights because you don't agree with them be hostile? And don't they hate people owning guns, which is a right of a citizen of the United States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.239.38 (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is hostile; your statement seems to sum up the ambiguity with which people have been arguing. “they hate people owning guns” can be interpreted as “they hate people that own guns” or as “they hate that people own guns.” The argument has been made they it's the latter, but their own members (and their webpage) don't seem to understand that distinction, either.mcornelius (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm about as pro-gun as they come, but unless there is a specific case where this issue has been litigated, then any reference to it would have to be considered original research. Now, if there is case law, then by all means include it and get the information sourced.  Otherwise, it doesn't belong. Rapier (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then remove it from other articles, because it's not a legal definition; it's not an objective term.mcornelius (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the term "hate group" is a legal term. It can be found in Federal and State statutes, as well as in numerous documents produced by the Justice Dept. etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is not. It is a term that is used by some government officials, especially in the Justice Department, but it has no statutory, regulatory, or judicial definition, meaning (at least in the United States) that it is not a legal term. mcornelius (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it IS. First off, I pointed out that the Justice Dept. uses it. They use it in statutorily required reporting. I further said the term can be found in STATE stautes. One example is Florida Statute 874.03(6): ""Hate group" means an organization whose primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against a person or persons or against the property of a person or persons because of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin." That is a criminal statute and it sure as hell sounds like the term is being defined legally. Do you want other examples or will that one suffice to show that you are incorrect and there ARE legal definitions in the US of what a "hate group" is? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is not. I said that US law does not give a specific definition for it; I said nothing about state law, but if you want to work in your state's definition and argue that that's how the term is generally used and an objective set of criteria, go right ahead.mcornelius (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I said the term IS used in "Federal and State statutes". You said it's not used in "the United States". Sorry you weren't articulate enough to say "in Federal statutes". Bottom line: You overstated your position, you were proven wrong and now you're backpedaling. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What the heck, I'll give you more. The legislative finding in FS 874.02(2) "Street gangs, terrorist organizations, and hate groups have evolved into increasingly sophisticated and complex organized crime groups..."Niteshift36 (talk)
 * The findings introducing a statute give the background of a statute, but notice the scare quotes; those indicate lack of a specific (generally accepted, unambiguous, and unnovel) definition for a term, even as used for a minor state statute.mcornelius (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are no "scare quotes" Those are for bolding the term. Go look at the statute itself. Further, the term IS defined in 872, which comes before 874. Duh! Once again, you speak about things you don't know and prove yourself wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How about the term being used in the US Code: TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 23 > § 481: "Each such survey shall be conducted so as to identify and assess the extent (if any) of activity among such members that may be seen as so-called “hate group” activity."Niteshift36 (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The term is used there, but the normal citation is 10 UCS § 481. Notice the scare quotes and that there is no definition. “Is” is in a lot of legal texts too, but it's not a legal term unless you're Bill Clinton. mcornelius (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, but nobody claimed "is" isn't in any statutes. Hate group IS in statutes. You can whine and moan about "scare quotes" (which is absolutely a crap excuse), but the fact remains, you've been shown wrong 3 times. Wiggle and squirm all you want, you will still be wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm gunna agree with Mcornelius here. There is no legal precedent for the term when it has been used elsewhere, why should this be any different? It is a colloquial term applied to those who advocate distaste towards particular things. Sunnis hate Shiites, Pakistan hates India, Nazi's hate Jews, Brady Camp hates guns/gun owners. If you don't classify the Brady Campaign as a hate group, then we can't classify any of the above (Nazis, Hamaas, etc...) as it either. -Deathsythe (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are legal definitions. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to disagree; I think the way most people use the term, it can be applied without making it completely subjective. My point was not to single out the distinction of being a hate group as pejorative (or accusatory), but that there is no case law to support it. I'm honestly on the fence about whether or not Brady Campaign should be labelled as a hate group, but it does fit the criteria on the hate group article. (I think the definition given in that article is extremely poor quality.) If we're going to argue about it being a hate group on the basis of that article, then it is. (And many other groups that probably many Wikipedians support, perhaps depejorativizing it on Wikipedia?) If you don't think it qualifies as a hate group, think of what qualities a hate group (in your conception) has. Discuss it on Talk:Hate group and try to apply those specific criteria to other groups. If those criteria don't apply uniformly, it's just an epithet (WP:POV) and doesn't belong on Wikipedia.mcornelius (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is a need to remove the term from other articles, then so be it. All I stated was that any reference to the Brady Campaign as a "hate group" should be properly sourced.  If there has been a reliable source that has ever referred to them in such a way (our own definition of "hate group" mentions the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Policy Law Center to name a couple), then by all means, add the phrase and source it.  However, if no such source exists even if it meets the definition you give, then according to Wikipedia Policy it should not appear in the article.  This doesn't mean it isn't true, it simply means that the argument isn't supported properly to be included in Wikipedia.  You can feel free to disagree (I disagree with a lot of Wikipedia policies, like the fact that porn stars are notable enough for an article, but war heros aren't), but the rules that we all play by here state that it doesn't belong.  Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs Rapier (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply activism to redefine it; just the normal consensus-driven approach Wikipedia takes to article-writing. This isn't a case of WP:RGW; this is a case of either
 * not relying on political advocacy groups' POV being the sources for defining a term that is pejorative and then applying it unevenly to further that POV and make a point; or
 * applying objectively quantifiable criteria to determine whether or not a group is a hate group (without special pleading as most of the comments advocating excluding that claim rely on).
 * mcornelius (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They're seeking to restrict the rights of all Americans, not just gun rights advocates/NRA members/etc. And they're seeking to restrict them because they're under the impression that exercising these rights is detrimental to public safety, and that somehow more laws will prevent criminals from preventing crimes.  They don't hate gun owners.  They hate guns.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and burning your church down means I hate the architecture, not you. They don't hate guns; many of their most fervent supporters have private security guards. They hate that people own guns (even if they don't hate the individual; they advocate against the private ownership of them, not demilitarization or even disarming police in areas where there was a handgun ban).mcornelius (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the ridiculous amount of bullets-under-bullets, the whole point of wikipedia is truth by consensus. If enough people think that it qualifies as a hate group (It already fits the definition), then I believe we should put it up there. --Scott Cahoon (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC) — Scott Cahoon (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That is over simplified. It's not "truth by consensus" Consensus isn't simply a vote. Inclusion/exclusion needs to be grounded in policy as well as "popular". Niteshift36 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * since when does the truth need to be popular? its truth based on fact and the cited references there is no need for it to be popular. removing this is section is hiding the truth. This needs to be restored unless someone can come up with a good reason other then "other groups are worse" or "they aren't so bad". Finch590 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — Finch590 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Nobody said truth has to be popular. In fact, the argument is to the contrary. You folks are saying, in essence, that if enough of us think it's true, it must be true. Fortunately, mob rule has been overcome from time to time in history, which is why we're not the center of the solar system anymore and the earth isn't flat. You want a good reason? I haven't seen anyone try to use a reliable source to call them a hate group. Every time I've seen it inserted into the article, it has been WP:SYNTH of someones reading of the wikipedia article on hate groups. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be the same argument on 2 different parts of this page, so I'll just repost my comment from below up here as it's still applicable (Check below for the original context.):

Yes anyone can own a gun, but choosing to, does put you apart from those who choose not to, and thus in to another group. And yes opposing a part of the constitution as it pertains to the CIVIL RIGHTS of other people is indeed hate. I'm curious what you would have to say about a group who opposed the part of the constitution (19th Amendment) that gives voting rights to Women, and openly advocates stripping them of the same?, or a group that advocates that blacks should not vote, and want's to bring back poll taxes?, or a group that insists anyone who exercises the first amendment in ways that they do not approve of be jailed? In what way is a group who openly advocates stripping the constitutionally guaranteed CIVIL RIGHT of gun ownership away from others simply because they do not agree with it any different? I also find it extremely laughable that you made the statement "they do not suggest that gun owners should be jailed" when that is EXACTLY what they do on a daily basis, seriously did you write that with a straight face? They openly state that they don't believe that anyone should own a handgun, and there should be laws that would jail anyone who does, or that they don't believe that anyone should have so called "assault weapons", a term which is deliberately undefined, as they made it up as a catch all to encompass anything that they feel looks scary, and that there should be laws banning those to, and that anyone who owns such a cosmetically incorrect firearm be jailed, and how they believe anyone who would dare buy a gun from a private seller be jailed simply for doing so at a gun show, or that people should be jailed for any myriad of other reasons for simply practicing there CIVIL RIGHTS. How is that any different from a group that advocates passing laws that would ban minorities from voting, or jailing anyone who speaks against there own political opinions? If you want sources fine I suggest that you reference the US Constitution http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html, the Bill Of Rights http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html, and the 14th Amendment http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html. Then Reference District Of Columbia VS. Heller http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf, then McDonald VS. City Of Chicago http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf. Now look up the laws, and definitions as they pertain to Civil Rights, and Discrimination, or just save yourself some time, and just look it up in the dictionary, here I'll do it for you:

discrimination

dis·crim·i·na·tion –noun 1. an act or instance of discriminating. 2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination. 3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination. 4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination

Is that enough sources, and logic for you? Now tell me how is the brady campaign not a hate group?Small Arms Collector (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Citation needed Seriously though, you need reliable sources.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously, though, Faceless Enemy is correct. Stop with the WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAPBOXing. TFOWR 09:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Agreed. Let's put it to a vote - say, 24 hours?
 * All those in favor of including the hate group paragraph
 * YES, it is a hate group they advocate removing the rights of a certain segment of society, they are no better than the KKK --Conor Fallon (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 76.24.137.64 (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC) — 76.24.137.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 67.167.181.65 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC) — 67.167.181.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * +1 for them being a hate group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.239.38 (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry Conor, but wikipedia is not a democracy. I don't agree with the Brady Campaign, and as a firearms and permit-to-carry instructor I deal in gun law and anti-gun fools on a regular basis.  However, attempting to demonize people that disagree with you is not a way to influence public opinion.  The long and the short of it is that there are no reliable sources that are referring to the Brady Campaign as a hate group and adding a section to Wikipedia that attempts to frame them in this light is original research at its worst.  We know that they are morons, but by overextending and trying to paint them as a hate group we only fall prey to those who agree with the Bracy Campaign (of which NiteShift is most definitely not!) when they return with simple fact the same way he did.  Let's argue with fact, and not opinion. Rapier (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Democracy or not, if the Brady Bunch meets the Wikipedia definition of a Hate Group, you either need to accept that, or change the Wikipedia definition of Hate Group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.219.35 (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — 71.246.219.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No, that's not how it works friend. Whether you or I feel they meet the definition is meaningless. What you are proposing is really synth. If a reliable source doesn't say it, it doesn't go in the article. Period. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, however this linguistic dance around the concept of a hate group is never going to be truly solved. No one would deny that a neo-nazi group that calls for the disenfranchisement or curtailing of rights for "minorities" isn't a hate group, however since this is all taking place within the American Legal Universe then they also have 1st Amendment rights which means their speech, even if vile, is protected so long as it does not break any other laws (Vandalism, inciting a riot, etc). The Brady Campaign has made it very clear that they dislike gun owners many times in their history, and has stated as such informally that they wish they would just "go away" or worse. This method of operating is very similar to "hate groups" who maintain one official stance for legal purposes but another for their own internal informal use. If their speech (both formal and informal) was centered only on the concept of guns alone and not the users then they would not be a hate group in my mind but rather an advocacy group. But when they attack and attempt to disenfranchise individuals of their "inalienable rights" then they become a hate group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.72.127 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the criteria on hate group article don't change, aye. mcornelius (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, its a group that spews hateful rhetoric and threatens violence. Also, the fact that it is composed of people united by the singular characteristics of 'hating' something, I believe it qualifies.FlyingHotPocket (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

in favor of replacing paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.113.69 (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — 67.167.113.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It sounds like the hate group article needs a re-work then, not this article.Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to devote your energy there to make it objectively quantifiable, unambiguous, evenly applied, and reaches a consensus. Hate group, though, is typically used as a pejorative, so I don't think consensus can be achieved if it's objectively quantifiable and unambiguous. Because it's pejorative, it is frequently misapplied where it is, and not applied where it would be meaningful. As it stands, though, the Brady Campaign meets the criteria on hate group. mcornelius (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think though, as was said earlier, "hate group is a bullshit pejorative term". Because it is a pejorative term, I don't think it should be used anywhere due to WP:NPOV, except in its own article; its definition is just too nebulous.  It could apply to sports fans, for fuck's sake.  And again, no reputable source is calling it a hate group.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then propose it for deletion, or make the way it's used on Wikipedia nonpejorative by applying it evenly without stigmatization. I didn't say it only had a pejorative use or that it could not have an objective meaning; if you make a point of not counting specific groups you see as less harmful or what-have-you, not based on objective criteria, you further its use as only a pejorative. mcornelius (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * mcornelius has a good point, if the Brady campaign just hates inanimate objects then why do many prominent members and supporters have private security guards? They hate gun owners, not guns. Awarenode (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC) — Awarenode (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It takes some doublethink on their part, but they're generally ok with security guards being armed. Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * why was the propery cited hate group section removed. just because you think its "not a hate group" doesn't dispute the fact that it now qualifies as one by definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finch590 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I believe that they should be listed as a hate group. They wish death and destruction on those that oppose their views on a regular basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.205.13 (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC) — 206.169.205.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No one has said anything about "hate speech." However, go and read the article here on Hate groups, and you'll see that the Brady Campaign could be seen to meet two of the three criteria (see above) that the article lays out in the definition.  As such, they meet the technical definition of a hate group.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.137.64 (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC) — 76.24.137.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I felt so inclined to vote for this I made an account just to vote here, I can't see how they aren't a hate group! Tacosis (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I vote yea, hate group. They attack a specific and definable group of people (law abiding gun owners. non-lawabiding gun owners dont exactly qualify as even if said group passed their agenda the law breakers would still have firearms). That sounds like a hate group to me. If they used factual data to argue a case, I wouldnt vote this way. but as they defame a specific group of people, that makes it hate. Yes its not as bad as, say, the KKK. But hate is hate. 24.126.235.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC). — 24.126.235.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Aye
 * My only concern is that the Brady Campaign may attempt to deface this article once the hate group paragraph is added. 97.116.161.27 (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — 97.116.161.27 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Aye. I never expected this discussion to become so serious or embroiled when I originally added the hate group entry this morning, although I have been half-seriously searching for NOR citations to substantiate it throughout the day. From what I have located throughout the day, the Brady Campaign does meet most of the characteristics used to single out hate groups by organizations such as the ACLU, SPLC, and in some cases state legislation or the US Justice Department. I'll also admit that I made the original edit anonymously because I was concerned about retaliation. Friends and acquaintances of mine that have locked horns with or caused political discomfort to the Brady Campaign and VPC have had some extremely unpleasant personal experiences as a result. Perhaps I can use the new ruling today as a partial defense against such underhanded tactics...GarageBay9 (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye. At first I thought the idea of listing the Brady Campaign as a hate group was silly at best, but after reading other outside articles on the subject, I fail to see how the Brady Campaign isn't a hate group. Replace gun ownership with skin color or sexual preference and it is identical (albeit, minus the violence). Bigtoe (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Aye 76.211.227.71 (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — 76.211.227.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * All those opposed to including the hate group paragraph
 * Even if you call my dog's tail a leg, it's still a tail.Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will put my support of the Second Amendment up against anyones. This is a ridiculous proposal. They aren't a hate group. Misguided and wrong? Yes. But a hate group? Not only is calling them a hate group wrongheaded, but it dimishishes the true nature of a real hate groups. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Faceless Enemy, we're not saying there aren't multiple categories of hate groups. To follow your analogy, we're calling it an appendage, and you're saying only limbs are appendages.mcornelius (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The organization does not appear to me to meet the definition of a hate group. Campaigning against mainstream, recognized human rights is certainly a bizarre and fringe position to uphold but hate speech describes a different phenomenon. &mdash;BurnDownBabylon 23:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what the Wikipedia article says. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR. So really, your reasoning boils down to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody here has argued that the Wikipedia page offers a real definition. There is no dictionary with which I am familiar, however, which does define the term in question.  As such, using the other article should not violate Wikipedia policy, because no one here is using it as a yard stick; rather, it is simply an example of suspect criteria which could imply that the term may indeed be being fairly applied in this instance.
 * If you can find a dictionary which defines "hate group" then I strongly encourage you to offer it here. Otherwise, it is completely within the scope of debate to use the other article as a frame of reference for the discussion here. 76.24.137.64 (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC) — 76.24.137.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an essay, not policy. Look again at WP:CIRCULAR:
 * “editors should not use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing.”
 * Referring to hate group on the question of whether or not the Brady Campaign is a hate group is not supporting the material in hate group; it applies it. Your interpretation would require no articles ever linking to other articles. If your point is solely that hate group misdefines hate group, have that discussion there.mcornelius (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I present WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as a policy? No. then what makes you think I don't know that? And you need to look at WP:CIRCULAR again because that is what is being done here. We're referring to a WP article, saying "it says this or that". Who cares? Use the actual source to make your argument, not some wikipedia article that has been mashed up by a band of POV warriors. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You presented it as a reason to exclude content. I did not claim that you claimed it was policy; I merely reminded you that it was not, and therefore not a reason for excluding it. Further, calling the subject of this article a hate group because they meet the criteria on that article says nothing about the content of that article. If articles cannot refer to each other, start unlinking everything now. There is a difference between making this article support a premise of another article and applying that. Should links to language now be removed from English language because that's circular referencing? No, it is an application of the former to the latter. It does not further the point of defining language; it is merely a particular application of it. mcornelius (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can stop putting words in my mouth anytime now sport. I didn't use it as a reason to exclude. I pointed out that it was not a valid reason to INclude. And no, articles can't be used as a reference. Use the reference in that article to make your case, put you can't say "wikipedia article X defines is as....." because wikipedia article X is NOT a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, everyone, simmer down. Why not just restore the old paragraph as a sub-heading under the current "Criticism" section? Or perhaps worded a bit more softly, acknowledging the debate and lack of a clear working definition on the matter? 76.24.137.64 (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — 76.24.137.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I've placed a notice at the NPOV noticeboard regarding this. Hopefully, some neutral input will be of assistance without taking this to a RfC. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for placing that notice. I have come over in response to it. The obvious priority for this article is improving the referencing. You can't include a label (good or bad) that doesn't have a good source. Good source obviously doesn't mean another Wikipedia article. Another urgent improvement is to take out the "Criticism" section. Start by just taking out the heading. Positive and negative statements about the Brady Campaign can go together in a section headed "Views" or something similar. You had a straw poll, which was a good idea. If you still can't reach agreement you should go to a Request for Comment. You might find it helpful to agree a list of things to do for the article. To-do lists go on the top of the talk page and are helpful for new editors to the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Another yes for for "is a hate group" Finch590 (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — Finch590 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Based on what reliable source? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: "This is a hate group" is not going to be decided by a vote. Consensus is great for reaching decision based on our policies, but it's in no way appropriate to address this issue. As Itsmejudith and Niteshift36 both mention: claims like this need to be backed by reliable sources making the claims. We can say, for example, that "X is Y according to Z" (citing Z as a reliable source). We can not say "X is Y" (based on a straw poll on an article talk page). TFOWR 14:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Having come over from the NPOV noticeboard I think this is about as straightforward a case of psychological projection as I've seen. It's quite common for one gang to say about another whats worst about themselves, e.g.gang A accuses gang B of selling drugs whereas gang B actually goes in for extortion and gang A goes in for drugs. Why do the rifle group not accuse the Brady Campaign of being socialist or sapping independence and standing up for oneself or freedom or something like that instead of this silliness of calling it a hate group? Please take any feeling of hate or spite elsewhere. Dmcq (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * what would gun owners have to be spiteful against? they (we) won. Regardless 2A was incorporated therefore brady is a hate group as its working article against a right protected by the constitution.its not rocket science. It was properly cited do you have any reason that it is not valid other then "its silly?"

It seems to me a minority group of anti gun activists are holding this article hostage (locked) and not allowing factual and properly cited material. Finch590 (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there are people that have an honest disagreement with you as to whether or not the Brady campaign qualifies as a hate group and can be properly sourced as such as per Wikipedia policy. Take a look at the userpages and editing history of the people that are commenting here, and I believe you'll find that many of those you believe to be "anti-gun activists" are exactly the opposite.  Rapier (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Anit-gun activists? Sport, I'll put my Second Amendment bona fides up against you any day of the week. If you bothered to look beyond this discussion, you'd see that both Sean and I were involved in the fight to keep a biased Brady based graphic out of another article. The part that you miss is that we (gun owners) are right, so we don't need to stretch or bend the truth like Brady does. And that is exactly what is happening here, trying to twist and turn a phrase just to make them sound bad. We don't need to make them sound bad, they take care of that themselves! And you keep saying "factual and properly cited" material. Where is the citation? What reliable source are you citing? I've yet to be shown one. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Today I learned that I am an anti-gun activist. Does that mean I should sell my collection? =( Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A citation must refer to the topic of the article. There are no articles that link the Brady Campaign and Hate Group. Citing a descriptiion of a hate group and saying it satisfies that is WP:Original research. That is not allowed in WIkipedia. Please desist from calling such a citation a proper citation, it is not. Dmcq (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol - ok, this is pretty funny. By this logic, we would have to classify every organized LEO (from county sheriffs, highway patrols, and local police forces all the way up to the FBI and DEA) as hate groups, because they advocates hostility and violence towards a well-defined section of the populace (i.e. criminals). oh, and the mortgage finance industry would probably qualify as a hate group as well, for targeting low-income populations for impossible-to-sustain home loans. Heck, even Wikipedia would be a hate group, since we actively suppress people who tangle up articles with ridiculous arguments (clearly targeting a class of brainless people in society)

Point of common sense: The Brady group cannot be a hate group, because the effects of their efforts would apply to them equally, along with the rest of society. A hate group implies differential treatment. Now if the Brady Campaign were advocating that only people in the Brady Campaign should be allowed to own guns, you might have a case (but even that would be debatable). but as it stands... you've had your fun, now drop it. -- Ludwigs 2 00:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite right - a group proposing to ban Kosher food across the board would probably be classified as a hate group. But excellent post otherwise. --FormerIP (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If RS call them a hate group then we can say that X has called them a hate group. In answer to Kosher food, That would be classed as an atack becasue a social group has to do it (thus denying them not only rights but freedom of faith). No one has to own a gun, you will not go to hell for not owning one. Its a matter of choice not imperative, no one worships the gun (though I am begining to wonder about the gun  as a kind of false idol). Also the anolagy only works if the Brady Bunch wnat to outlaw totaly guns and overturn the second amendment, is that the case?Slatersteven (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Even the kosher food one wouldn't fly. If, for example, the reason to proppse the ban was because of a health concern etc, that wouldn't make it a hate idea. They simply disagree with the interpretation of the Second Amendment. They're wrong, but disagreeing isn't hate. And, unfortunately, the court left open the door Brady will use by mentioning that states still have the ability to impose "reasonable regulation". I notice most of you are completely ignoring that point. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies to those editors engaging in common sense, but I've collapsed this thread on the basis that most of it is purely voting-to-change-reality, not discussing-how-to-improve-the-article. TFOWR 09:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Chalee76, 29 June 2010
editsemiprotected

The brady campaign has yet to issue a repsponse to the recent SCOTUS decision involving McDonald v. Chicago.

Chalee76 (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes they have; it's linked on this page. Anyone think we should add it in? I don't know that there's much to say about it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no request for a change here. If you want to change something on the article please explain what you want changed.   GB fan  talk 09:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hate Group
Isn't this technically a hate group since it protests against an established civil right? (see: McDonald v. Chicago) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.47.122 (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but someone thinks otherwise. Hello Link (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

brady campaign CLEARLY meet the definition of a hate group- they actively espouse stripping rights constitutionally guaranteed through deceitful tactics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.22.173 (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Any group that stands in opposition to an established constitutionally protected right is seditious and a hate group. SpringerRider —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpringerRider (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A hate group – likely. Seditious? Most definitely not. Sedition is speech, organization, or conduct contributing to or advocating insurrection or rebellion, and they're not that. mcornelius (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me any group that opposes a constitutionally protected right is a hate group. Heck if this was a group that was advocating for the re-enslavement of african americans, or denying jews the right to free speech it wouldn't even be questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.48.173 (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What matters here is not what any of us think. It's "what do reliable sources state?" - which none of the above comments appear to address. Could you all focus on discussing how to improve the article, not what you believe. TFOWR 23:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree 3000%. I'm amazed that editors are engaging in an exercise to determine the definition of "hate group" by closing their eyes and imagining (it appears) rather than referring to reliable sources on the matter. Opposing any part of the US constitution is a protected right for US citizens if they wish to do so, not a hate crime. --FormerIP (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If RS call them a hate group then we can say that X has called them a hate group. However as a hate group seems to be define as "A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society" I really fail to see how disagreeing with some aspect of the US constitution would qualify them.Slatersteven (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Slatersteven, lets go by your definition point by point:
 * ♦ Are the Brady Campaign an "organized group or movement"? I would submit that they are.
 * ♦ Are the Brady Campaign advocating hostility toward a designated sector of society (specifically, aimed at gun owners, and expressed through public demonstrations and various means of protest, to include boycotting organizations which support the rights of the same)? I would submit that they do.
 * ♦ Do gun owners qualify as a "designated sector of society" for the purposes of this discussion? I would submit that they do.
 * As such, I would appreciate it if you would clarify and defend your position, as on its face, it appears highly illogical. 76.24.137.64 (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC) — 76.24.137.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You can, of course, submit anything you like, but when you submit something, you should at least try to make it sensible.
 * The Brady Campaign does not advocate hostility towards anyone. they do not suggest that gun owners should be jailed, nor do they suggest that gun owners should be beaten or killed, nor do their protests involve lynchings, destruction of gun-owner's property, or any other violence to property or person.  they simply tell people they think guns should be banned under law.  If you consider that 'violence' then you are not very experienced with the world
 * Gun owners do not qualify as a designated sector of society since (under current law) any non-felon can own a gun if they so choose. it's not like people are born with guns built into their forearms.
 * Of course, I don't actually believe you'll listen to this argument, because I believe you're just trying to stir up crap. In which regard I will remind everyone sensible on the page:
 * Please, Do Not Feed the Trolls
 * -- Ludwigs 2 04:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many point by point ways you try to make it fit because it doesn't mean jack. Here is a point by point for you:
 * Wikipedia requires reliable sources.
 * You do not have a reliable source.
 * End of discussion.
 * Is that simple enough?Niteshift36 (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes anyone can own a gun, but choosing to, does put you apart from those who choose not to, and thus in to another group. And yes opposing a part of the constitution as it pertains to the CIVIL RIGHTS of other people is indeed hate. I'm curious what you would have to say about a group who opposed the part of the constitution (19th Amendment) that gives voting rights to Women, and openly advocates stripping them of the same?, or a group that advocates that blacks should not vote, and want's to bring back poll taxes?, or a group that insists anyone who exercises the first amendment in ways that they do not approve of be jailed? In what way is a group who openly advocates stripping the constitutionally guaranteed CIVIL RIGHT of gun ownership away from others simply because they do not agree with it any different? I also find it extremely laughable that you made the statement "they do not suggest that gun owners should be jailed" when that is EXACTLY what they do on a daily basis, seriously did you write that with a straight face? They openly state that they don't believe that anyone should own a handgun, and there should be laws that would jail anyone who does, or that they don't believe that anyone should have so called "assault weapons", a term which is deliberately undefined, as they made it up as a catch all to encompass anything that they feel looks scary, and that there should be laws banning those to, and that anyone who owns such a cosmetically incorrect firearm be jailed, and how they believe anyone who would dare buy a gun from a private seller be jailed simply for doing so at a gun show, or that people should be jailed for any myriad of other reasons for simply practicing there CIVIL RIGHTS. How is that any different from a group that advocates passing laws that would ban minorities from voting, or jailing anyone who speaks against there own political opinions? If you want sources fine I suggest that you reference the US Constitution http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html, the Bill Of Rights http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html, and the 14th Amendment http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html. Then Reference District Of Columbia VS. Heller http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf, then McDonald VS. City Of Chicago http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf. Now look up the laws, and definitions as they pertain to Civil Rights, and Discrimination, or just save yourself some time, and just look it up in the dictionary, here I'll do it for you:

discrimination

dis·crim·i·na·tion –noun 1. an act or instance of discriminating. 2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination. 3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination. 4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination

Is that enough sources, and logic for you? Now tell me how is the brady campaign not a hate group? —Preceding [[User:Small Arms Collector|Small Arms Collector (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)]] comment added by Small Arms Collector (talk • contribs) 08:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are only so many times we can explain this: this is an encyclopedia. It isn't based on my views, Small Arms Collector's views, or the views of a random IP address. It's not up to us to interpret logic, provide our own opinion(s), or WP:SOAPBOX. When a reliable secondary source describes the article's subject as a "Hate Group" we can cite then. Unless that happens, however, this is all just meaningless internet chatter. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 09:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)