News

Loesch Uses Anti-Gun Group’s Message to Support the Second Amendment

Dana Loesch

Does anyone else find it disturbing and completely unacceptable that many vocal members of anti-gun groups are continually threatening to rape, kill or otherwise harm legal gun owners and their family members? How do they get from guns are bad and kill people to someone should kill you because they do not agree with your politics? Worse yet, why don’t other anti-gunners stand up and call out these members from their own ranks?

danaL2Twitter
Conservative talk radio host and gun-rights advocate Dana Loesch says she has reached out to the FBI after an Internet troll edited a promotional video she recently did for the National Rifle Association to depict her bloody gun death

Dana Loesch, Second Amendment advocate and NRA spokesperson, was one of the latest people targeted by the antis. Fortunately, Dana is not a person to back down when it comes to protecting her person or her reputation. However, this problem is far from just limited to NRA spokespeople. Mothers, fathers, hunters and people from all walks of life have been the targets of the gun control crowd.

Loesch recently created a promotional video for the NRA. Shortly after it was posted, a member of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense decided a graphic edit to the video was in order. The final product shows Loesch shooting herself in the head in graphic detail. Apparently, the group only opposes gun violence when they do not get to perpetuate it.

As earlier stated Loesch is not a person who needs anyone to protect her—not even from trolls such as these. Loesch immediately took to Twitter with, “Great. Now anti-gun #MomsDemand fans are making videos threatening to kill me: #gunsense.” Later she came up with a better idea.

Loesch took the opportunity to show the dangers that exist around us every day—many hiding within the ranks of the gun control crowd. First, she thanked the video’s editor for proving her point of the need to carry and the need to continue to fight for ourt constitutional rights under the Second Amendment. Then, she took it a step further. Loesch added that she reported the video to the FBI and declared that for every hate Tweet she receives, she would donate to the NRA under the hater’s name and then buy herself another box of ammunition!

Going Viral

Sometimes good things go viral. Supporters of the Second Amendment started piling on; many who were not previously supporters of the Second Amendment or the NRA also joined in. Just to spike the ball and declare checkmate!, Loesch has promised to read the vitriolic tweets in a sponsored segment of her radio show.

I say it is time we supported this fine woman who is leading a charge to support and defend our rights by tuning in to her show. The information can be found at http://danaloeschradio.com/.

Other Women Being Targeted by the Antis

Loesch is vocal and high profile, but hardly alone when it comes to the vitriol of the gun control crowd. The antis call themselves “peace-loving,” then turn around, and show their true colors. They use social media to publish threats to harm, debase, and threaten to kill gun owners and their families with the sickest forms of speech and wishes.

Hunters are not immune either. How many times has it happened to a young hunter simply wishing to share a photo of the sport they love? They are slandered in every form and their personal safety threatened. “You hunted the deer? Now I will hunt you and your family! Think about that when you go to sleep tonight…”

Is it Just Women?

No. There are plenty of men who are the targets of these troll attacks as well. I don’t want to bring up the man’s name, but remember when wolves were delisted and open to hunting about a half-dozen years ago? The antis targeted the first successful hunter, his address was made public, pictures of his kids and the school they attended as I recall… It was a mess, and for what? He LEGALLY pursued and harvested an animal.

Dana Loesch
Dana Loesch hosts her award-winning, nationally syndicated daily radio show, The Dana Show: The Conservative Alternative from Dallas, Texas where she also hosts “Dana” on The Blaze television network.

The Result?

Concealed carry (and open carry in certain areas) is on the rise. Every state has some form of concealed carry law on the books. Women are buying guns, getting concealed carry permits, obtaining hunting licenses, and seeking out not only the minimum training required, but also more advanced firearms training. The shooting sports such as trap, skeet, IDPA, IPSIC, 3-Gun, SASS and others are on the rise with numbers not seen in decades.

To a degree, we can count that as a win. Not a major one, but a victory. At a minimum, we can revel in the fact that it must be terribly intimidating to the antis to watch their efforts to strip our Second Amendment rights only strengthening those rights and our resolve. However, we have to be smart and learn the lessons from the criminally minded such as the Mom’s Demand Action editor of Loesch’s video.

We have to remain on the high road. Take a page from Loesch’s playbook and find ways to expose the antis’ hypocritical efforts and capitalize from each negative effort in the way Loesch did. She brought new people to our side of the fight and raised money to support those who support us.

Free Speech?

Hardly. This is criminal speech and a real threat. Over the previous months, we have seen the result of this type of speech when applied to police officers. Officers were targeted and executed in their cars or at gas stations. We need to remain vigilant. You never know where, or when, some mentally-unhinged person will watch a video and decide to take action. If they cannot get the person in the video, you could be the substitute. Stay legal, but do what’s necessary to protect you and yours.

Where do you fall on actions such as those taken against Loesch or others? Have you ever been the target of the Antis? Will you tune in to watch and support Loesch? Share your thoughts and opinions in the comment section.

Join the NRA here. [dave]

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (155)

  1. How many times does someone have to say that the 9th Amendment and Article 1 Section 8 are two separate items. If you think they are together, cite the law book or link that exactly says that. The reason is because Cases and Materials On Constitutional Law by Noel T. Dowling and Gerald Gunther 7th Edition, says they are two separate items. In no way does the Congress or State Government have the right to confiscate property under Article 1 Section 8 http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html .In this section clarifies it and scroll down to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 http://famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/exclufed.html .
    Article 1 Section 8 Clause 14 has to do with “Martial Law” and trying of citizens under UCMJ. This is the Disqualification Act of 17887 as noted the Commonwealth of Massachusetts http://shaysrebellion.stcc.edu/shaysapp/artifact_trans.do?shortName=act_disqualification16feb87&page=

  2. You are both wrong. The IX Amendment and Article 1 Section 8 are two different things. The IX Amendment illuminates the 4th Amendment that protects private citizens from “unlawful search and seizure.”
    Article 1 Section 8 limits the powers of Congress including the use of “marshal law and trying private citizens under UCMJ.
    The Disqualification Act of 1787 is a “State Act” of the State of Massachusetts. It has got nothing to do with the US Constitution. It was when Massachusetts pardoned those involved in Shays Rebellion.
    If you what to debate it. Post cited references that support your debate.

  3. In fight for 2nd Amendment Rights she is making a very good point. Using anti gun data against them. Clinton, Obama, and the UN are applauding Australia for a 31 percent drop in homicides, since their gun ban.
    The figures and the math is not right, and the math does not add up to a 31 percent drop. Here is why. Australia uses a a dual reporting system or two separate system. One system is for the Northern Territory of Australia and one system for the less populated areas of Australia. In the less populated areas Australia reported a drop in homicides from 1.6 to 1.1 per 100,000 people and in the Northern Territory they reported 7.7 per 100,000 people. So if you do the math to find the “mean or average”, the overall mean/average is 4.4 per 100,000 people for the whole country. This implies that death by gun violence has increased in Australia.
    The key I found is when I saw the 7.7. That meant there is no way in hell the countries overall is 1.1. The math does not compute at 1.1.
    Unfortunately, those who support gun control will buy into the 1.1 without doing the math because Obama and Hillary said so.

  4. Secundius Roe vs Wade is not an act. It is case law. Women’s rights are protected under the Civil Rights Act and it’s additions. Sharia Law does not protect women’s rights.

    1. @ Joe.

      Just were Do I Say it WAS an ACT, as in written into LAW. An ACT can also apply to an ACTion Taken By Someone. The Supreme Court Ruled on the ACTion or ACT…

  5. Secumdius in a sense it is. There are only 16 states that have banned the use of Sharia Law. http://conservativepost.com/16-u-s-states-decided-to-ban-shariah-islamic-law/ Basically there are no rights for the non believers of Islam. Its law is dualistic and based on the Koran/Qur’an. It is even a criminal offense to apply western ideology to it. I am posting another link to Chapter 5 Sharia Law. As you scroll through it you find the verses of the Koran quoted. This link is a reasonable explanation of their laws based on their belief system. http://www.politicalislam.com/sharia-law-for-non-muslims-chapter-5-the-kafir/ You guys can decide for yourself, but suggest you read through it.

    1. @ Joe.

      That wasn’t the Question, Sir.? The Question, was What’s the Difference between putting Women in the US in Jail. For a Contitutionally protected Law since 1973 and Sharia Law. They MAY NOT BE, Being Stoned for the Act. But the ARE Being JAILED for a Act, that Legal Protected by the Constitution. As told by the US Supreme Court…

    2. If you are talking about Roe vs Wade, which protects the right of women to make medical decisions regarding their body over the rights of a fetuses. I do not believe they have totally proven their case. Yet have provided sufficient enough proofs to gain sanctions under the the Supreme Court. This case was decided under medical evidence of 1973. If the case was retired under today’s medical evidence, I do not believe they would get the same ruling. I believe they would get a reversible, which would claim abortion is murder. My opinion is based on the advancement of medical technology. If they do not what kids, just get sterilized or known as a hysterectomy. Then adopt a kid.

  6. I am so happy to have found Dana Loesch’s radio show and follow her TheBlaze show. We need more people like Dana, who are strong on the Constitution and strong on our gun rights.

  7. I was advised a few years ago that Veterans diagnosed with PTSD would be put on the list that our government was going to disarm first. 2 main reasons of that made no sense at all. 1)by law each veteran with PTSD would have to “legally” found incompetent by for every individual veteran. 2(there are over one hundred thousand police officers in the US that have been diagnosed with PTSD by the Veterans Affairs from prior service deployments, and also by civilian doctors from incidents that occurred during on the job situations, which doctors state are more at risk because his/her situation was caused as a civilian by a civilian and that his PTSD is more likely to cause problems cause he continues to work with civilians. Yet, the second group would be considered exempt. Fair? Not even close.
    But then there is the one that chaps my ass the worse of them all. I don’t know if the anti-gun owners and the civilians that are hellbent on a gun ban but are completely ignorant of one huge factor that I saw first hand when I was police officer from 95′-01′ and then for a few months in 03′, 3 months in 04′, and then 2 months in 05′. Those were times when I worked with US Customs at the shipping yard in Wilmington, NC. Law abiding citizens buy their guns at licensed gun shops where their background information is run by the FBI. Now here is where gun-grabbers really look dumb. When they take away the guns of law-abiding citizens, what are they planning to do with the guns that the criminals own? Those dates that I fore mentioned are time when we would confiscate a shipping containers that contained between 50,000- 750,000 illegal firearms that had no serial numbers. For every containers we seized 8-15 made it into the country and to the streets. What then you dumbasses that think you can control guns, and you will never make a dent in illegal guns because more come in to this country by the millions on a monthly basis. The only thing a gun ban does is it takes the ability for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, their family, and their homes and property. So honestly, would a ban truly help? England found out the hard way. I was a civilian cop before I left to join the Marines after 9/11. But when I was a cop, I made hundreds of felony arrests, drug arrests and parole violators, and I normally found between 2-8 firearms on each criminal and not one had a serial numbers or a few had them ground off. Society needs to pray that a ban never happens.

  8. And i don’t want to give the impression that i’m not a sinner because i still sin even after ive accepted him as my lord and savior but there’s a thing called grace and jesus has it. I’m not perfect and he knows it If we were perfect we would’nt sin and then we would’nt need jesus but we are’nt perfect and that’s why we need him so much. Just do some research on jesus but instead of researching why he’s not real look up why he is. Don’t believe satans lies he covered his bases you will find plenty of lies telling you why he’s not real if you look for it trust me.

    1. Wow. Goodluck with that thought…
      You know, you dont have to be overly religious or even claim to be a Christian to believe a God. But you do need to be intelligent enough to be able to have faith and see the truth in the midst of all the lies and deception.
      But, I guess its like they say, ignorance is bliss… I really feel bad for people who think like you.
      Its the ignorance and lack of God in our society now that has greatly encouraged the worst condition this once great country has ever been in.
      But whos cares right?
      Who needs morality anyway. We have more important things to worry about right now. I mean how are we great americans supposed to get through the day if we dont know whats going on with the Whoredashians???

    2. I don’t need your fictitious god to be moral, have values, feel patriotism, or go to war. I also don’t need your fictitious god to be a good American.

      I have the right to NOT have to accept your religion in any activity I choose. My lack of god never stopped me from serving in combat either.

      Unless you’re trying to force me to worship your fictitious god, like a crazed radicalized muslim. Or maybe you’d like us all marched into your church. . .at gunpoint.

    3. Maybe you don’t but I do! Good luck with your self righteousness when you take the dirt nap.

    1. @ 2ndprotectsall.

      Aren’t you Anti-Constitution, Too? Last time I looked there were 27-Articles to the Constitution and YOU seem to be Focused on ONLY ONE.

    2. Hmmm, Im confused.
      So talking about the subject at hand and NOT the other 26 articles makes you anti-constitutional??
      Glad I learned that now, so that the next time someone brings up the subject of my right to free speech I can be sure to ramble on and include all 26 of the other articles.
      Thanks man, youve been a huge help.
      What a joke.

    3. @ AmericanPatriot.

      Sorry My Bad, 27 Amendments then. In a hurry to Post, is wrote Articles, instead of Amendments.

    1. Here’s a better idea. A much better idea.

      Remove ALL SECURITY at state AND Federal buildings where legislators work. Then, remove ALL security at the offices of the NRA.
      They can concealed carry like the rest of us, but they don’t get to work behind a wall of security all day while ‘pretending’ to be afraid.

      Then, when those fukers are as exposed as the rest of us perhaps they’ll begin to understand why guns everywhere is kinda dumb.

    2. Beau that is about the dumbest crap I have ever heard I mean I can hardly respond to such a retarded comment.

    3. Lance, you are undoubtedly one of those mental midgets who claim that government cannot do anything right.

      Let that sink in for a minute:

      The government that is so incompetent that it cannot be trusted to provide even the most basic services is somehow now going to come and take away your guns.

      The sheer ridiculousness of this argument is, well, insane.

    4. As correct as you are about the governments incompetence, Im gonna have to agree with Lance on your last comment. Pretty retarded, and it didnt make a lot of sense. Maybe english isnt your first language, and in that case, maybe just a few more classes would help.
      What side are you even on anyway?? Your comments so far, sound rediculously dem.
      Just tryin to get a little clarification… If youre here as an anti, then ya gotta expect youre gonna be ridiculed a bit. If your not anti, then youre probably still gonna get rediculed for not being able to put a clear sentence together. If its a mental handicap, than I apologize.

    5. @ Beau.

      Yeah, I find that rather “Hyprocrtical” of the NRA? Claiming the RIGHT to Open and/or Concealed Carry, and then saying “Give it Up” at the Security Desk at the NRA Headquarters in Fairfax, VA.

    6. Beau & Michael,

      You two seem to be confused or, as Kerry would put it (maybe you’ll understand it that way, you just don’t seem to comprehend the nuances of the topic.

      Beau: “Remove ALL SECURITY at state AND Federal buildings where legislators work. Then, remove ALL security at the offices of the NRA.”

      Michael: “Yeah, I find that rather “Hyprocrtical” of the NRA? Claiming the RIGHT to Open and/or Concealed Carry, and then saying “Give it Up” at the Security Desk at the NRA Headquarters in Fairfax, VA.”

      The NRA isn’t hypocritical, their offices aren’t in publicly owned buildings.

      Beau: “The government that is so incompetent that it cannot be trusted to provide even the most basic services is somehow now going to come and take away your guns.”

      Nobody said the government is incapable of doing anything, they just have a propensity to do their job badly, such as the EPA and the Animas River. Had a civilian done that they would be in jail awaiting federal prosecution. Since it was EPA personnel they just said, oops, my bad. Is government confiscation of firearms a valid worry? Yes, it’s happened before. Even if they performed it in a efficient manner, it would still be an example of them doing their jobs badly… they are supposed to uphold the constitution.

    7. If your claim that “Had a civilian done that they would be in jail awaiting federal prosecution.”

      So, tell us all how many people went to jail for the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico a few years ago?

      You folks have a totally irrational fear-set for your government, but you completely trust big oil? That’s the most screwed up thing I’ve heard in a while.

      And yea, I am proud to be a Democrat. A liberal. A Progressive.
      It sure beats trying hopelessly to drag us all back to the 50’s, or maybe the stoneage. We will keep the WH and probably take the House and maybe even the Senate in 2016.

    8. Beau you would not survive today’s military with Sharia Law being crammed down every bodies throat. I don’t believe you survive many areas in this country, because of it. There are 34 states were the Muslims are cramming their faith down everybody’s throat through the use of Sharia Law. Sharia law is no more than the Qur’an written into law. Yet you complain about Christians trying to influence you. The use of Sharia Law in this country is due to progressive Democrats like you.
      I really don’t believe anyone hear has an irrational fear of their government.
      During the Gulf oil spill they should of put half of the Federal EPA in jail. For having sex and drug parties on the off shore rigs, and fudging the inspection reports.

    9. @ Joe.

      Isn’t Sharia Law, already being Crammed Down Everybody Throats, NOW. Passing Laws that can Arrest Women on Reproductive Right’s, when Reproductive Right’s has be US. Law since 1973. In Roe V. Wade, by the US Supreme Court…

    10. “So, tell us all how many people went to jail for the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico a few years ago?”

      Beau,
      Has anyone explained “context” to you? Why is it that you democrats seem to always see a word, or snippet of a statement, infer things that were not stated or implied and make statements without understanding (or possibly ignoring) the full context? Can’t you see the forest for the trees? Here is the definition but, considering your previous posts, you probably will disagree with it.

      Context: the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect.

      If you are going to attempt to make an analogy, at least make sure that it is analogous to the situation being discussed and not just have vague similarities. To make it easier for you, I’ll elaborate a bit more on my statement.

      Had a civilian gone to that mine, screwed around with things that they apparently didn’t understand and caused a massive spill of toxic chemicals such as the EPA was guilty of, they would be in jail.

      I didn’t say if the owners of the mine did it and I was not implying such. It is not analogous to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico… unless you’re trying to imply that someone who didn’t work for BP, or any of their affiliates, was the cause of that spill.

    11. @ Don P.

      If it Hold’s TRUE for the NRA, then it should Hold TRUE for ANY Privately Owned Business. If I as a Business Owner post a Sign saying “NO GUN’S ALLOWED”, why do you as a Customer feel you have the Right to Ignore It!

    12. “If it Hold’s TRUE for the NRA, then it should Hold TRUE for ANY Privately Owned Business. If I as a Business Owner post a Sign saying “NO GUN’S ALLOWED”, why do you as a Customer feel you have the Right to Ignore It!”

      Beau,
      Show me where I stated, or even implied, that as a customer I have a “Right to Ignore” a business’s “NO GUN’S ALLOWED” sign?

    13. @ Don P.

      You Stated the NRA is NOT a Public Entity but a Private One. If So, as a Member that PAY’S MY DUE’S, That make’s me a Shareholder in the Company. As one I should be Granted all the Right and Privileges Associated as a Shareholder. If the Board of Director’s and it Head can “Pack Heat”, SO CAN I.

    14. “You Stated the NRA is NOT a Public Entity but a Private One. If So, as a Member that PAY’S MY DUE’S, That make’s me a Shareholder in the Company. As one I should be Granted all the Right and Privileges Associated as a Shareholder. If the Board of Director’s and it Head can “Pack Heat”, SO CAN I.”

      Michael,
      Your analogy is flawed since that would depend on how the rules are written. Being a dues paying member of an organization does not necessarily make you a “shareholder”. I am a dues paying member of Amazon Prime, but that does not make me a shareholder. If you knew anything about the stock market and real shareholders, you would know that, in some instances, there are shareholders who have the standard of one vote per share, some who have more than one vote per share and some who own non-voting shares.

    15. @ Don P.

      You may Wish Not to Call it a Stock, But Essentially IS. The “NRA Ring of Freedom” sponsor program.

    16. “You may Wish Not to Call it a Stock, But Essentially IS. The “NRA Ring of Freedom” sponsor program.”

      Honestly Michael, where do you come up with some of these statements? First you try to equate a membership in the NRA to being a stockholder. Then you mention the Ring of Freedom as some sort of a supposed proof in an apparent attempt to justify your argument. One problem with your argument is that the Ring of Freedom is a donation program and has nothing to do with a regular NRA membership. Yes they do have a “membership” in the Ring of Freedom, but it still doesn’t give you any rights similar to the concept of a stockholder. Stockholders purchase their stocks but the Ring of Freedom is a DONATION program. Stockholders can also SELL their stocks at the going rate and get that amount of money returned to them. Here is, from the NRA website, the list of benefits that a Ring of Freedom donor receives.

      Golden Ring of Freedom • $1,000,000
      Donors receive gifts of appreciation plus:
      • Custom Golden Ring of Freedom blazer
      • Special recognition ceremony at the Ring of Freedom reception at NRA’s Annual Meetings & Exhibits
      • Invitations to private events

      George Washington Society • $500,000-$999,999
      Donors receive gifts of appreciation plus:
      • Recognition at the NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits
      • Permanent Ring of Freedom recognition
      • Invitations to special events

      Alexander Hamilton Society • $100,000-$499,999
      Donors receive gifts of appreciation plus:
      • Recognition at the NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits
      • Permanent Ring of Freedom recognition
      • Invitations to special events

      James Madison Society • $25,000-$99,999
      Donors receive gifts of appreciation plus:
      • Recognition at the NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits
      • Permanent Ring of Freedom recognition
      • Invitations to special events

      Patrick Henry Society • $10,000-$24,000
      Donors receive gifts of appreciation plus:
      • Recognition at the NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits
      • Invitations to special events

      Thomas Paine Society • $1,000-$9,999
      Donors receive gifts of appreciation plus:
      • Recognition at the NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits
      • Invitations to special events

      Nowhere in the list does it say that you get any other privileges or rights, including voting rights.

      There are a number of different memberships available in the NRA. The different types of memberships are: Regular, Liberty, Junior, Senior and Life. Liberty and Junior memberships get no voting rights at all. Regular and Senior memberships get voting rights after five consecutive years of membership. Life members get to vote upon purchasing their membership. But, according to the NRA person I talked to, the voting is only for board members… not for policy issues. You are not a stockholder.

      Unfortunately, I made a major error at the beginning of this whole discussion. That error was to think that you, in at least SOME amount, knew what you were talking about. This entire discussion is basically moot since it is impossible to claim the NRA is hypocritical about the gun rules at their headquarters. This is because, contrary to your initial claim, the NRA allows anybody to open carry in their headquarters, since open carry is legal in Virginia, and to carry concealed if they have a permit. But don’t believe me, call them yourself.

    17. In addition, Obama thinks the idea of allowing ANYONE to have firearms at a school as ridiculous. But he has no problem with the fact that there are armed guards present where HIS kids go to school. THAT is hypocrisy.

    18. “It come with the Job, Sir. I suspect it comes with Wayne LaPierre’s Job, too.”

      Michael,
      I am well aware of the fact that Secret Service coverage goes with the job, but how does that pertain to my statement? How or why his children have armed protection is really not pertinent to the topic. It does not detract from the fact that Obama’s children are protected by armed guards against any wacko who decides to go shoot up a school. Then, even though his children are protected, he is against anyone else being able to bring a firearm into a school for protection of the rest of the children of the country. Due to that fact, he is a hypocrite.

      I have no idea whether or not Wayne LaPierre’s has any children, grandchildren or grandchildren or if they have any armed guards where they go to school. I also fail to see how that would be pertinent to my statement. Wayne LaPierre has not been against the arming of anyone to protect the children in the schools of America. If any of his family is or was going to school where there are armed personnel for protection AND he was against the rest of the country having armed personnel to protect their children, I would call him a hypocrite too.

    19. “But doesn’t Secret Services Protection, also Filter Down to he School and the Student’s and People within as well…”

      The actual answer to your question would be… maybe. But it really doesn’t affect the accuracy of my statement since I covered that in my statement. If there is an immediate threat, all of the people in the immediate area will be safer because of those Secret Service agents so, in that instance, the answer would be yes. If, however, someone (unaware that Obama’s children attended that school) was to come in at the other side of the school and start shooting, you can be sure that the Secret Service agents guarding Obama’s children are not going to leave Obama’s children with no protection. The Secret Service agents are there to protect Obama’s children, not the rest of the children of the school. I have no idea how many agents are assigned to his children, but it really doesn’t affect my statement. If they have enough agents, one or more might go to investigate. More likely, however, they will either remain in place or evacuate the child they are responsible for. Even if they had dozens of agents posted at every entrance, it would still only be of assistance to the children in THAT school, which I covered in my statement. I intentionally specified “… where his kids go to school…” It was, and still is, an accurate statement.

      “In addition, Obama thinks the idea of allowing ANYONE to have firearms at a school as ridiculous. But he has no problem with the fact that there are armed guards present where HIS kids go to school. THAT is hypocrisy.”

    20. @ Don P.

      OK, and what about the State Police or DC. Metro Police, Sheriff’s and Federal Marshal’s also Stationed at the School. It’s NOT JUST the US. Secret Service that are There. Protection of the President’s Children, ANY PRESIDENT’S CHILDREN has to be the Size of a Reinforced Battalion Level at Minimum…

    21. “OK, and what about the State Police or DC. Metro Police, Sheriff’s and Federal Marshal’s also Stationed at the School. It’s NOT JUST the US. Secret Service that are There. Protection of the President’s Children, ANY PRESIDENT’S CHILDREN has to be the Size of a Reinforced Battalion Level at Minimum…”

      First you ask about Secret Service Protection filtering down and now it has grown to include the Police, Sheriff’s officers and Marshals. Are you going to add the Navy SEALs next? The question I have for you is… did you read my entire post? Apparently you didn’t, or you would have (or at least SHOULD have) realized that the question you just asked was covered in the post you are questioning.

      “… Even if they had dozens of agents posted at every entrance, it would still only be of assistance to the children in THAT school, which I covered in my statement. I intentionally specified “… where his kids go to school…”

      You could have thousands of armed personnel from whatever law enforcement organization or military branch you wish and surround the school with T-walls and Hesco barriers and it wouldn’t make any children, other the ones in THAT SCHOOL, any safer.

    22. Secundius,
      As I stated previously, no matter how much protection you add, it won’t benefit anyone not attending THAT school.

  9. I may be a little slow this morning but… How exactly are you planning to kill me if you are disarmed and I am not?

    Unless you can throw rocks at 1,000 ft./s, you are probably going to lose that fight. /;-)

    1. Exactly.
      Swarms of UNarmed Americans are coming to take away our guns?

      Yea. Um OK. I swear the fearset among some of these posters is baseless and unbelievably naive, and borders on felony stupid.

      Every move the government makes is somehow ‘interpreted’ to have some hidden, nefarious meaning. A boogeyman behind every rock, just waiting to grab yer guns, and leave you defenseless, so a bunch of liberals can force you into gay marriage and sharia law. Because that’s what we want right?

      Yea, that’s the ticket! This entire mindset is juvenile and stupid..

      It’s Jade Helm all over again. Much ado over nothing.

    2. Wow, yah… Like we said retarded!
      Seems your own naivity and ignorance has beaten you to the ground like a fat kid stealin a twinkie from a toddler! Really? Are you honestly dumb enough to think that the government and police agencies will come knocking on your door “UNarmed” to disarm you? And as if our goverment isnt powerful enough to have a hidden agenda behind their actions… Cuz thats never happened before!! Damn!! What the hell are you smokin’ man?? I seriously doubt its a legal substance!!

    3. I guess you never saw any of the YouTube videos of the Gov doing exactly that, confiscating people’s guns illegally. And putting them at risk, not just from looters, but police were also charged with killing people.
      And the National Guard & police were NOT unarmed when they came, they had full auto rifles up & aimed ready to kill anyone who resisted. This is the “Land of the Free” you really live in…

    4. So you have videos of our government taking away guns on a large scale?

      Do share a link, do share. . .and no BS videos.

    5. @ John.

      I’d like to see this Video, too. I’ve spent the last 2-hours on YouTube, Google, and Bing. Using every “Variation” of Questions I could think of, And I came up DRY…

    6. @ John.

      You might want to REREAD, the IX Amendment, Article I, Section VIII. Which gives the President of the United States and the Governments Broad Executive Powers to Suspend the Bill of Right’s in the Constitution. Which Include: Speech, Press, Assembly, Relegion and the Right to Bear Arms. So technically the word “Confiscation” Doesn’t Apply…

    7. “You might want to REREAD, the IX Amendment, Article I, Section VIII. Which gives the President of the United States and the Governments Broad Executive Powers to Suspend the Bill of Right’s in the Constitution. Which Include: Speech, Press, Assembly, Relegion (SIC) and the Right to Bear Arms. So technically the word “Confiscation” Doesn’t Apply…”

      Secundius,
      If you are going to tell someone else to REREAD something, maybe you should, first, thoroughly read what you are commenting on, and maybe you should also refer to a dictionary. Then you should make sure you have correctly read the comment you are responding to.

      1. John (the person you have addressed your comment to) did not use the word “Confiscation”. He used “confiscating”. (I would have let it slide if you hadn’t put it in quotation marks.)

      2. Confiscate: To take (something) away from someone especially as punishment or to enforce the law or rules.

      Contrary to your comment, “confiscating” is EXACTLY what they were doing. So yes, technically it DOES apply.

    8. @1 ab urbe condita
      &
      @Michael,

      I was not referring to The Disqualification Act and have no idea why you think I was. My previous comment was simply in response to Secundius’ comment:

      “@ John.
      You might want to REREAD, the IX Amendment, Article I, Section VIII. Which gives the President of the United States and the Governments Broad Executive Powers to Suspend the Bill of Right’s in the Constitution. Which Include: Speech, Press, Assembly, Relegion and the Right to Bear Arms. So technically the word “Confiscation” Doesn’t Apply…”

      Secundius’ comment was obviously in response to John’s comment (of October 15, 2015 at 5:39 am) since it was the ONLY comment in this string to have used any variation of “confiscate”. That comment was:

      “I guess you never saw any of the YouTube videos of the Gov doing exactly that, confiscating people’s guns illegally. And putting them at risk, not just from looters, but police were also charged with killing people.
      And the National Guard & police were NOT unarmed when they came, they had full auto rifles up & aimed ready to kill anyone who resisted. This is the “Land of the Free” you really live in…”

      In his comment, John was referring to the government (which part is irrelevant) taking firearms away from US citizens. Since the act of taking away something from someone else is the definition of confiscation, it is obvious, or should be, that Secundius’ statement was fallacious. The word “confiscation” did apply since that is exactly what was done. I am assuming that Secundius had intended to state that the term “illegal” did not apply (which, possibly, could be correct), but I have no way of knowing. From reading some of his previous comments, it is also possible that he was either off his meds or self medicating.

      Now, can one of you two tell me if and how you, for some reason, still think I was referring to The Disqualification Act?

  10. Beating them at their own game. Very simple and effective.
    Let’s face it, their antagonistic tactics of threatening violence, forces people to purchase pistols and get trained to protect themselves. Ignorance, arrogance, and pride are very good allies.

  11. Let me get the straight; if your gay of some sort ( to many to mention now) you write something threatening on social media the cops and FBI are all over you. This lady was threatened and a video made of it, that is a hate crime and some people need to be in jail now. She was threatened and she has the account name……..go lock them up.

  12. Gearmoe I agree. The question is how far will the anti-gun groups go to promote gun control, and how violet will they get to promote gun control. Will they inspire and challenge a mental person to commit mass murder. Maybe it’s time law enforcement should start looking at these groups each time an active shooter incident occurs. To see if there is any direct or indirect relationship, or collaboration with gun control groups agenda. The groups are making serious threats and one way of fulfilling those threats is stated above.

  13. The vast majority of the “gun control crowd” are democrats, this is a known fact. That being said, for the anti-gun crowd to say they are a peaceful bunch is just a blatant lie to make themselves feel better. By and large, your average democrat lives in a fool`s paradise that is wrought in hypocrisy. The way to shut them down is to get out and VOTE these control freaks out of office in 2016. You don`t vote? Then you get what you deserve when they start trampling on your 2nd amendment and other rights. The time for complacency is over. If you have had enough of this liberal BS then do something about it for God`s sake! Democrat politicians only fear one thing and it is the ballot box. We law abiding gun owners can scare the Hell out of them and we better. There is a storm coming named Hillary and she will make Obama look like a saint when it comes to firearms and the laws surrounding them. Bernie Sanders is no different. Apparently they think there are no democrats that own guns, they are wrong and it is high time that the law abiding democrat gun owner starts letting them know it.

  14. To me this is just proof of the utter hypocrisy behind people’s hatred and/or fear of guns and those who protect their rights and families with said firearms. They don’t seem to understand that such threats and blind hatred against an object they don’t even tend to know the basic operation of is far more dangerous than the weapons involved.

    It’s that kind of blind, unmoving bias against a specific demographic and/or the root of said demographic that leads to genocide — murder on large scale. Dehumanization and utter remorselessness against the “enemy”, in their eyes, US…is the first step toward putting people in cages with brands to be sorted, chastised, and inevitably disposed of.

    I’m not saying anybody realizes that the fundamental hate behind such conflicts is still very alive in the souls of people today….I’m saying that, because of this ignorance, it lives and it -thrives-. All it would take is for someone to drop the other proverbial shoe in X or Y situation to end up with death on both sides of any conflict.

    Food for thought

  15. I was involved in WA State’s opposition to writing about I-594. What I found was the anti-firearm position was never above threats, name-calling and labeling me. The MDA and groups related are the type of people we need to have self-defense for.

  16. During Katrina asymmetric marshal law was used. The New Orleans Police Chief at that time went overboard with it. Like letting most of the department to loot stores.
    Personally I believe there is a large amount of the population, who does not trust this administration. Then point if the feds wished to wipe you they would just send a drone out. Are you even aware how many peppers own a EMP mini canon or a hand held? Just take a wild guess.
    Asking Bin Laden. He’s got a couple holes in his head besides other areas, he can’t swim, and my diving gear will not go that deep.
    So why not try to get back to the subject, because she has a good working strategy when dealing with “antis.”

  17. Threats to kill based on a “political” opinion are hate crimes and should be prosecuted as such. The FBI should find who made the sick edit to Loesch’s video and they should be charged with a hate crime – a felony with enhanced punishment.

  18. These hateful persons should be exposed and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Our society’s inability to appropriately articulate a well framed argument and establish a baseline for decorum when discussing opposing points of view regarding polarized political issues may very well be contributing to intolerance leading to violence. We all must strive for civility and restraint when in disagreement. I have grown up in subcultures where firearms were readily available in large numbers and we did not resort to deadly violence. The violence we are experiencing is not caused by those firearms, but by a lack of respect, trust, fair play and a host of socioeconomic issues and problems we need to address. The leaders of America need to instill strong ethics in the populace and re-enforce them continually. In short, we all need to love our fellow man better and more often.

  19. Personally, as far as I am concerned anti gunners, Muslim Radicals, Illegal immigrants, etc. can threaten all they like. My attitude is simple. “Bring It On”. Talk is cheap and if you want a fight all you need to do is start one. You will be surprised how few of us will be intimidated or back down from the confrontation.

    1. I fully agree with you. As american citizens it’s our God given right to keep a maintained militia and bear arms. Also as a member of the Army National Guard I would like to add let’s see what’s going to happen when they start sh%^$!

  20. JumpStreet, you wouldn’t know the truth if it conked you in the head.

    Turn off the FOX news and stop reading all the wild-ass conspiracy theories on INFOWARS and get real. That sh|ts all made up to sell advertising, just like the National Enquirer at the supermarket.

    Suckers like you are letting life pass you by, while you believe only the worst things in life and fear everything. What a waste.

    Oh, and there probably IS NO GOD, or a SATAN, so you can move on from that too. It was all made up 2500 years ago, by the very people you hate today! Arabs! In the middle east! Oh sh|t!

    1. Beau, there is no arguing with an idiot. You are a blind idiot. Your comment proves my point. You are just too stupid and blind to realize it. Obama is lying to all liberal voters about gun control. Why? Because Liberals want full control of the government and all of us so they can do what ever they want to all of us. First step is to take away all guns from innocent citizens (not criminals, they make us dependent on government also). Do you see a trend here? Can you open your eyes? Read the Constitution. Try to get a grasp. Stop believing lies. Gee, ever read the Bible? It explains why lying is pure evil, just like Hitler was. Read about Hitler while you are at it. Hitler disarmed all Germans ASAP. Then he began killing Jews that were German at the time. WAKE UP.

    2. Trace,
      Your dumfck comment contradicts itself. You said:

      “Obama is lying to all liberal voters about gun control. Why? Because Liberals want full control of the government and all of us so they can do what ever they want to all of us.” What would I do with you? Nothing.

      Why would Obama LIE to liberals, if liberals want to take away your guns? Are you saying Obama is standing up for gun owners?

      And I’m a gun totin’ liberal. Currently, I have CC Ruger.380 LCP and a sweet superlite AR-15 all rigged up. I know a ton of liberals and NONE of them have EVER spoken about taking away guns from anybody.

      And, I also don’t know anybody anywhere who wants us to ‘take over’ government. For what? I got a business/job already. Then you claim that you ‘see’ a trend?!? WTF? Obama got elected (contrary to your delusional FOX News BELIEFS) by a huge majority of Americans who want to move this country forward, beyond endless debts and wars. Then, he won again with a bigger margin in 2008. The economy has recovered and jobs are back, housing is rocking coast-to-coast, stock market is setting numerous growth records, banks are lending again, gas prices are low, interest rates are VERY low. Exports are UP, UP, UP and my company has grown nearly 2012% since 2008.

      On top of that I have spent years living in Germany after WW2 and I spent years on the military. I was raised a Catholic and said the mass in latin, so yea, I think I know something about the bible.

      You need to do the waking up.Trace. Your fears don’t even make sense.
      The truth is Republicans ran up our debts and crashed the global economy. That is EXPANDED government. Conservatives always CLAIM they want smaller government, then they get elected and do the opposite. Every time. Nobody trusts Republicans anymore, not even Republicans.

      And OUR Constitution is sometimes not so applicable in modern times. Slavery was once accommodated in the Constitution. And are you saying you have the right to own a nuclear weapon? Or do you stop at a tank? Where does it end? You got the right to bear arms right? Get real.

      Try to get a grasp. Wake up! You just got schooled.

  21. I’m just a man who knows the truth about the world i live in. I do my research and i’ve had years to do it. If you look around you with open eyes you will see what i’m talking about. Instead of instantly shunning someone who speaks about these things take the time to research what there saying and you will see i and many others like me speak the truth. You have to look at the whole picture and it becomes clear that these people are very powerful, very rich and they want full control and they wil not stop until they get it. Look at your dollar bill printed by the federal reserve and the symbol you will see is a pyramid with the eye on top. That symbol shows up everywhere it’s in tons of famous movies, rap music, t.v show’s etc it makes you wonder a little. There hidden in plain sight go youtube it ppl have made videos on it. You will also see a phrase in latin that says Novus ordo seclorum translated “New World Order” which echoes what im saying about the one world government they are after.. You remember the twin towers/pentagon burning trick with the 20$ dollar bill that came out long before the towers crashed? There were countless movie’s depicting the towers going down as well. Coincidence? What if 911 was an inside job false flag operation to go to war with the middle east to gain control and take away more rights of the american people with the patriot act. If you do your research on 911 dig into the facts you will have far more questions than answer’s and you will question your government. The only reason i’m telling you all this is in the hopes that i can open you or anyone’s eye’s and see that the world that is potrayed to you is not always what it seems to be. Jesus is real and so is satan. once you undertstand this you can understand why people are as wicked as they are today. Satan has control of this planet until jesus return’s but don’t fear jesus has everything under control turn to him he’s calling anyone who will listen.

    1. up until you brought J>C into your rant you where doing good …However I must contend your take on the devil in charge and in the next sentence you say do not fret JC will come agian and fix everything he has a plan… well his plan is realy screwing the people his should be saving…..I know that if you have read this so far you may find that JC has not shone up for a couple of THOUSAND years now……WHAT A LOAD CRAP..THAT IS NOT A PLAN THAT IS DENIAL..IF YOU CAN TELL JC IT IS TIME TO GET IT DONE….OR GET ANOTHER PLAN…GOOD LUCK WITH THAT

    2. Your right Chuck, he had a good spiel going until it turned into a religious rant.
      The towers were blown up…why the Gov doesn’t want to acknowledge this I don’t know, but since they don’t, it looks like a false flag operation.

    3. Jumpstreet, Dude I want some of whatever it is you are smoking. You seriously need to get out of your Mom`s basement a little more often. You are so far out in left field that we couldn`t find you with a search warrant.

    4. Good one Scott! Jumpstreet sees the boogeyman everywhere.

      Hopefully his mom bricked in the basement door to prevent his lurking around town lookin’ for satan’s helpers, like me and the Rolling Stones.

  22. You don’t get it do you? My point is that whoever called gun owners “paranoid” for thinking that the government is coming for weapons is misinformed. I don’t care what the “reason” was for taking guns it was an illegal action against the american poeple of new orleans period theres no spinning it the constition should never be perverted. And if there was lawlessness there the last thing they should have done is taken the only protection the people have. Yet somehow you fail to recognize this fact. I never said anyone should be executed i said there plan was executed. People like you don’t understand that there is a secret group influencing this country JFK spoke about it here is part of the speach he gave “For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

    Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.” JFK also took action against the federal reserve with Executive Order 11110 and he was killed. Here is another qoute about private banks controlling the country like we have today (Federal Reserve). “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
    — Thomas Jefferson
    They have control of our money (Federal Reserve) they have control of our internet (NSA). They control the major media and are using the media to control the elections and complete there agenda’s (Gun Control). Do you think the debt crises we have is an accident? There creed is “Order Out of Chaos”. And they are chomping at the bit to disarm and control the weapons because they cannot fully enslave us until they do, This will happen there will be a one world government we are seeing this in the making at the un. The book of revelations speaks about it as well. Most americans are unaware of what’s coming.

  23. First off secundius i don’t like your arguments. Second beau your talking about people being paranoid about our government taking guns away from legal owners. Did you or anyone else read or hear about what happened in new orleans after katrina. The national guard did just that they kicked in doors looking for guns and they took all of them they could find at gunpoint and that is a fact do your your research. All military personel who were involved swore an oath to uphold the constitution and defend threats foreign and DOMESTIC. Wherever the order came from it was from high up and somehow official after official turned a blind eye to the traitorous order and it somehow made it down the coc too foot soldiers and yet no one denied to follow it. Everyone in america thinks our troops will disobey such an order (some might) but in this case it was executed. The foot soldiers upon given the order should have immediantly taken the person giving the order into custody at gun point and deal with the threat that was posed to the american civilian liberty but they did’nt do that. This proves 2 things. 1 It can and will happen again and 2 the soldiers we have today will most likely not detain WHOEVER the traitor is that gives such an order and will in face execute the order leading to senseless american bloodshed. One thing the government and most who live in america forget is that we the people have a RIGHT to defend ourselves from this kind of thing not only that it is our duty and the gun is our means to do so. “When the government fears the people there is liberty. When the people fear the goverment there is tyranny.” -Thomas Jefferson
    My friends i fear the government.

    1. @ JumpStreet.

      In the Case of Katrina, there was NO LAW & ORDER. Because MOST of the Police Department Personal FLED. The National Guard, Confiscated Weapons because of Random Shooting’s by Self Appointed Groups, with ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY to keep the Peace.

      Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, walked of the Line and NOBODY reported him Missing until he didn’t show up for Duty Muster. Should we ALSO “Execute” the Soldier’s that were doing Guard Duty that NIGHT. And as far as WHAT YOU THINK OF ME? WHO GIVES A SH^T!!!

    2. Jumpstreet, all that Katrina crap happened during the BUSH presidency. If you haven’t heard, we’ve had a new President for the past seven years.

      Are you still afraid of the BUSH presidency?

      Your ‘fear set’ must make it hard for you to walk around the USA without looking for that jihadi trying to cut your throat. How do you sleep? Conspiracies everywhere! Boogey, boogey!

      I do not fear my government. I fear morons like you trying to keep up PRETENSES that someday you’re gonna have to shoot-it-out in a rifle fight against the Feds in order to keep your rights.

      Our Federal government has drones and weapons you do not have, nor will you ever have.

      Do you own an MQ-1A Predator drone with Hellfire missiles? No, you don’t. Too bad. Yet somehow, your pretend that our government is gonna engage you in a rifle fight. This is the stupidest thing I have heard in a while. Felony stupid.

      There you are, all sandbagged in your house with the baddest rifles on the planet, and loads of ammo, when a Hellfire missle, launched from 30,000 ft., eight miles away, turns your whole shebang into a parking lot in about a second. Game over rifle boy. Now what? If our Federal government seriously wanted you dead, you’d be vapor, or fish food by now. Ask Bin Laden.

    3. What does Bush have to do with it? The gun confiscation was due to Mayor Ray Nagin’s city government ordering it. You liberals keep wanting to blame Bush for everything. Are you still afraid of the BUSH presidency? If you haven’t heard, we’ve had a new President for the past seven years. Get over it!

      Beau: “Our Federal government has drones and weapons you do not have, nor will you ever have.

      Do you own an MQ-1A Predator drone with Hellfire missiles? No, you don’t. Too bad. Yet somehow, your pretend that our government is gonna engage you in a rifle fight. This is the stupidest thing I have heard in a while. Felony stupid.

      There you are, all sandbagged in your house with the baddest rifles on the planet, and loads of ammo, when a Hellfire missle, launched from 30,000 ft., eight miles away, turns your whole shebang into a parking lot in about a second. Game over rifle boy. Now what? If our Federal government seriously wanted you dead, you’d be vapor, or fish food by now. Ask Bin Laden.”

      Hey Beau, how was Bin Laden killed?… In a rifle fight.

  24. Why is the Media not spotlighting the escalating gun violence in Chicago?The city is Democrat thru and thru and has lots of gun laws,6000 shootings in the last 3 years 75% of them black

  25. Secundis if I were there when that happened I promise you that individual would be sipping thru a straw for the rest of that persons life. The treatment of our Vets is deplorable.I agree that the problem does lie in a do nothing sell-out Congress which is a major reason I will support a non-politician for Pres. By the way my Father-in -law is suffering the effects of doing two tours in the Navy on gun boats in South Vietnam.The poor guy has been cut up and radiated so many times. My heart goes out to you for your injuries.

    1. @ steve B.

      I was with two other Army Buddies, that Splintered Off from a Larger Group. We were in one of the Art Wings in the Rotunda. As we were pass on of the Restrooms in the Wing, a Young SNOT in a Grayish Suit came out of the Restroom and we Collided. I was in a Wheelchair, as he was Dusting Himself Off. First he started to RAG about how Expensive his Suit Was, then without Warning, he Look at Me. And Said “I Wish You Were DEAD. Before I could say Anything as a Responds, He said that Handicapped should go somewhere to DIE. That way their Wouldn’t BURDEN the Hospital System and Take-Up Valuable Space, for those’s who really needed it, Like Him. My two friend’s after hearing the Conversation want to Pick-Him-Up, and Toss Him Over the Railing to the Level some 40 or so Feet Below. And Make Him a BURDEN to Society. The WORST thing about the Experience WAS that Her was WEARING a Republican Lapel Pin on his Right Collar Stay. I’m a Republican TOO, SIR. I Hope the guy was a “One Term Wonder”. I’ve NEVER seen him on TV, or on any “Talking Heads, Talk Show’s”. Being in the Capitol Building, is like being on Another Planet. With it’s OWN Set’s of Rules and Laws. If I EVER were to Sharpshoot My M1E6 Sniper/Garand, it WON’T BE the White House, it WOUND BE Capitol Hill, WHERE the “HERD” Need’s to be “THINNED-OUT”. So DON’T TELL ME HOW “RIGHTEOUS” the GOP/Republican Party IS. There the WORST PEOPLE on Capitol Hill. Any Law they Break, would Throw me in PRISON, All they get is a SLAP ON THE HAND. I have to sSTOP THIS before my Blood Pressure goes through the ROOOF…

  26. Man. Another thread that has got off subject. As far as Kerry’s 4.5 month tour in Vietnam, which is being question by. Veterans and POWs for truth is something else. Most real heroes do not seek bragging rights. Those who do find themselves in a world filled with PTSD. So you might consider the Secretary of State., who supports gun control, might have enormous issues of PTSD. So, what is his state of mind when proposing various forms of gun control.

    1. For the record, John Kerry was attacked by a bogus group trying to get George Bush elected. Yea, the same George Bush who had his cocaine arrests expunged from the records in TexAss. The same George Bush who couldn’t even show up for Guard duty. His daddy got him into the National Guard so he’d stay outta Vietnam. I was not so inclined and I served my country.

      John Kerry NEVER sought ‘bragging rights’! You cannot find spoken, written, or video evidence of John Kerry ever seeking bragging rights, so that is a bald-faced lie. That is not his style.

      For the record, we’re talking about a man with not one, not two, but three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star. Is all that bogus? No. So STFU about John Kerry.

      It is the height of hypocrisy to even suggest that John Kerry, who received multiple commendations in combat actions, was in ANY WAY less heroic than a chickenhawk pussy who couldn’t show up for the coward Guard duty his daddy got for him.

      GW Bushs’ moronic war crimes, his disastrous economic policies, his letting us get attacked on 9/11 after he was warned repeatedly that terrorists wanted to fly jetliners into skyscrapers, his worthless No Child Left Behind program and his simple inability to speak cohesively stand as an iconic example of a true idiot he is correctly perceived to be. Globally, people think Bush was/is a moron. They are correct. We all saw the same show.

  27. I like the way she is handling it. The more threats the antis make it appears they what the guns for themselves. Their action promotes more gun violence against law biding citizens and police.

  28. I have been targeted by some Muslims for being American and for being Jewish .I have never been targeted by a Christian for anything.

    1. @ steve b.

      in 2002, in the Capitol Building in Washington, DC. I eas Targeted by A Republican Member of the House, Just for being Handicapped. He looked at me, and said that he wished I was Dead. Because if I’m, I can’t BURDEN the Health Care System ANYMORE…

  29. Secundis -I was in Russia right after it opened up to the West.The place is disgustingly poor. The gov. is still an Obama wetdream. Totally controlled by corruption and thugs. The idiots who compare ANYTHING between our Constitution and theirs are stupid.We had a successful Revolution that bred a new country with evolving freedoms. Comparing that to what the Russian People have today is absurd. Liberal/ Progressives are attracted to oppressive societies because of the intolerance. That is why Obama and the Left have always had a love affair with anti-American regimes-Castro Iran Russia etc.. Hating Jews and Freedom Fighters is part of their philosophy. Hitlers SS operated out of Spain then Egypt spreading their Hate . The result is Osama Bin Laden. and now Isis. Valerie Jarret has been by Obamas side and one should check out her Iranian viewpoints. Obama has bought into the Muslim Brotherhood BS and his Arab Spring was a clear result of that. That is who is in the White House. You better believe he would like to de-fang the American People

    1. @ steve B.

      Sir, I live just outside Washington, DC. in Northern Virginia. And from what I can see, the Threat isn’t the WH, it’s Capitol Hill, A TOTALLY F^CHED BUNCH OF BASTARD’S Looking to Get RICHER at the American People’s Expense. I’m Right of Center (NOT TEA PARTY) Old School Republican. The GOP on Capitol Hill, are Working for THEMSELVES, NOT the American People…

  30. I find it Interesting that People are Comparing Our (the USA’s) Constitution,with the Russian Federation’s Constitution. Each have a Right of Citizen to Ownership of Guns. But that’s were the Differences STOP. Ever READ Russian Federation Gun Law’s. A Real Eye Opener. Our Gun Laws are MILD compared to Russian Federation Gun Laws. In Russian, EVERY BACKGROUND CHECK IS “MANDATORY”, and I MEAN “EVERY”. Mental Health, Sex, Race, Age, Years of Residency, ANYTHING you can and cannot Think-Of, IS “MANDATORY”. Kind of Make’s you Wonder just exactly who is Vladimir Putin is AFRAID-OF…

  31. Progressives are usually the ones crying “economic justice” as long as its YOUR economic justice, ever notice how they are pro-choice as long as its Their choice and NOT yours, they cry about diversity but last time I looked the Dems are too Old Too White and way Too Rich. They cry about gun control But the cities with the toughest gun laws-Chicago and Wash DC are murder capitols ,they talk about Police Violence but wont talk about Black on Black Violence Yeah sure you are a progressive .Try giving a poor kid a chance in a Democrat city a good education with the progressive Teachers Union. Try ordering a large soda in NYC. Are you for Real??? Progressive? Hell No OPPRESSIVE YES And Choice? As long as its THEIR choice

    1. And when will one of them, when complaining about the rich, specify exactly how much is someone’s “fair-share”?

  32. Actually Beau its lucky for them to not approach me for my weapon.We have thousands of gun laws . Its not the laws its the population. If we want a society where nobody ever gets killed then we must first acquire a society where bad never happens.Aint gonna happen.Try to come up with a way of screening everybody for mental health issues.Theres the rub. We would clear out the Executive Branch of Government first. The is no answer to this problem. There are problems for which there are no answers

    1. Roy,

      Since this attack is imminent, you’d better sandbag your doors and windows and stockup on ammo. According to you, we’re all being ‘targeted’ RIGHT NOW by a bunch of ‘sick, twisted, haters’ for rape and murder, along with our families.

      And you propose a bunch of UNarmed liberals to do this?
      Seriously?

      While you’re sandbagging your house, make sure you block the GOVMINT “Brain Scans” by wrapping your head in tin foil. That’ll will stop Obama from reading your mind! Jesuz freakin’ christ!

  33. After reading about the threats to Ms. Loesch regarding her stand on the Second amendment, I was struck by two main realizations that possibly have escaped the attention of the rabid anti gunners. The first one is that there is a measure of logic even in the most irrational rants and statements. The fringe anti gunners have clearly stated that there is situation where it is acceptable to do great bodily harm to another human being, which includes rape and murder. As a gun owner of many years, I agree, most reluctantly, that there are situations where taking a human life (but most definitely not rape, any Circumstances), may be necessary. In my world, and those of my gun owning friends, That situation would entail the defense of my family and my own person against such people who would kill me for any number of reasons, including my beliefs regarding the second amendment. My decision to own firearms was primarily motivated by my desire to protect myself and the one`s I hold most dear to me. I have trained extensively, and have practiced at every opportunity with my guns to insure that I have the competence to use firearms in a safe manner. I can say with great confidence that I would rather shoot myself than to threaten another innocent human being with my guns, and that includes not even pointing a gun at someone by accident. This emphasis on the safe handling of firearms was the first thing that was hammered into me by my instructors and other responsible gun owners, and has since become so automatic in my mind that I do not even have to consciously think about it when I am at the range.
    The second thing that struck me was of a more humorous nature. If the anti gunners want to kill Ms. Loesch and those of us like her, how do they propose to do it? Since they don`t own guns, will they apply for a gun permit to buy the murder weapon legally? But since that takes almost forever, as all of us gun owners who obtained our firearms legally know, maybe they`ll pay one of us foul gun owners to buy one for them, or possibly, since they are pacifists, even pay one of us to do the dirty deed? But then again, I`m being silly since the afore mentioned would involve a loathsome gun, and that`s a Bozo no no,, so I guess the only things left would be kitchen cutlery and similar cooking utensils, or maybe that 36 inch long Aderondack softball bat we all have stashed in the hall closet. I can`t help thinking of the movie line where the guy calls his attacker a moron for bringing a knife to a gun fight. Enough said.

    1. Tom I agree which much of your post, but something about it keeps bothering me. How do you know that a woman/person being raped and often beaten unconscious isn’t going to be killed in the end? How can they protect themselves then? So what do you mean by defense of yourself or family. Are you going to wait and see? Just a question…

  34. “Does anyone else find it disturbing and completely unacceptable that many vocal members of anti-gun groups are continually threatening to rape, kill or otherwise harm legal gun owners and their family members?…”

    Is it disturbing and unacceptable? Yes. Does it surprise me? No. The members of anti-gun groups are generally democrats. This is the party that gets irate about sexist attacks on women… unless those women are Republicans. The party that gets irate about racist comments or treatment of blacks… unless those blacks are Republicans. The party that will protest against a law enforcement officer killing a black person who is attacking them, but not against black on black murder. The party that apparently has no problem with… and voted not to penalize… infanticide. No, this doesn’t surprise me in the least.

  35. Whether it is Right To Life(rs), or Gun Control Advocates, Tree Huggers, Bambi Huggers, or any other fanatical hate group, they all have one thing in common. They preach love and peace, but threaten rape and murder for any opposed to their view. They burn down women’s clinics and kill the doctors. They target hunters, by threats of rape and murder of family members. They target hunters in the field by shooting at them. I could go on, but you should see the patterns in their disgusting and despicable actions. They are haters, sick, twisted individuals that hate themselves and life so much that they must inflict others with their self-loathing.

  36. Well Beau you sound logical enough but as a Jew who was there in 73 I find the threats coming out of Teheran to annihilate Jews Wherever they live a real threat and so therefore I am not only armed but can shoot the balls off a rabbit at 50 yards with my 1911. Nobody and I mean absolutely nobody gets my guns.

    1. Steve,

      And lucky for you, nobody is trying to take your guns away. Unless you’re racked with psychological problems.

      We need tighter gun controls to keep mass murders down. I don’t mind the extra checks, since I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.

      There are two types of gun owners basically. One group is hunters and people who carry for protection. Shooting enthusiasts are also in this group.

      Then there’s the nut-jobs who believe that our own government is actively conspiring to disarm, al la Jade Helm, everyone and wisk them through tunnels under Walmarts to be forced into Islam.

      The first group would not be affected by magazine size limits over 10 rounds.

      The second group wants unlimited firepower, which works against us in mass shootings.

    2. Let me be the first to warn you that you’re dealing with well-versed second amendment advicates. Second, all gun confiscation started with registration. How else did Stalin knew where to look for guns? (Or was it Lenin) and third, mass shootings all happen at gun free zones. Think about. Would a thug rob a bank that has a sign saying “all employees are required to be armed”? Did you ever heard of a mass shooting at a gun show? Also there are many reasons why a person would want more than 10 rounds in their magazines. Just ask the police why they stop using revolvers for the most part.

    3. “We need tighter gun controls to keep mass murders down…”

      Are you just against ‘mass murders’ or against ALL murders? If ‘tighter controls’ kept ALL murders down, Chicago would be among the cities with the lowest murder rates.

      “There are two types of gun owners basically…”

      That sounds like “two groups” that you pulled out of your nether regions. There are numerous categories and there is no reason someone can’t belong in more than one of the groups. There are many people who like to collect guns but rarely, if ever, shoot them. There are people who are collecting for when the government takes over, or collapses, who also hunt. Some are collecting because the government said that we should be ready for any type of disaster including the zombie apocalypse. Some collect them as an investment, since members of the government ARE trying to make certain types of firearms illegal and, if they succeed, those firearms will increase in value. There are others, but that should be enough for now.

      “The second group wants unlimited firepower, which works against us in mass shootings.”

      Just because a person thinks “the government is actively conspiring to disarm everyone” doesn’t mean they are are any threat to anyone. It just means they think the government is trying to take their guns away. It doesn’t mean they aren’t law abiding citizens.

      The main problem with the knee-jerk reactions by the liberal left is that they see something they don’t like and they want change. But they don’t stop to figure out if their chosen “change” would actually improve the situation, they just want something done. They also usually fail thoroughly investigate their choice of change and its total effect (law of unintended consequences).

    4. Again and again. Just because someone wants to try and solve mass shooting problems, this does not IMPLY that the solution is to take everyone’s guns away. I have never heard an American say that taking all guns away would solve this problem. It won’t and we all know it. Can we move on now?

      The basic problem is that most people on this site have a fantasy about shooting it out with Obama, or the ‘Feds’, as they attempt to disarm everyone so our President can force you into Islam. It’s a total BS fantasy, yet it is the dream of so many. You yearn for ‘the big fight’ that’s never coming. But keep buying guns and ammo! Don’t stop! That’s the key right? More guns = more safety?

      For anyone who has been in close quarters combat with a pistol or rifle, it’s a scary joke to think these people can save themselves, or anyone else in a fight. Here is a great article about the stupidity of arming everyone.

      http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/

    5. “Just because someone wants to try and solve mass shooting problems…”

      One problem is that the “common sense laws”, that the left consistently brings back out immediately after a shooting, would have done nothing to prevent those shootings even if they had already been in place.

      The problem with your link which, I am assuming, is supposed to dispel any idea that a civilian with a gun can make you safer… is what they are using as data.

      “But the statistical reality is that for every justifiable homicide in the United States—for every lethal shooting in defense of life or property—guns are used to commit 34 murders and 78 suicides, and are the cause of two accidental deaths, according to an analysis of FBI data by The Washington Post.”

      They are only using death statistics. It is not an uncommon occurrence for an armed civilian to prevent or stop an armed crime without killing anyone or even firing a shot. Criminals do not want confrontation if they plan on leaving the scene of the crime and they do not want immediate confrontation if they don’t plan to leave. That is why the mass shootings are typically committed in “gun-free zones”. The anti-gun left, however, doesn’t look for those statistics since it is easier to just look up death statistics and the other statistics wouldn’t support their agenda. You will also rarely, if ever, hear about any of them on the media unless there is a video.

      Using the same basic methods, and statistics such as the Empire State Building shooting, I could come up with an article to justify disarming police officers.

      “While a number of conservatives declared that Oregon’s Umpqua Community College, the scene of a mass shooting last week, was a gun-free zone, the truth is that several concealed carry holders were present, and they wisely decided to leave their guns holstered.”

      The statement, as written, makes no sense. If Umpqua College was a gun-free zone, the fact that “several concealed carry holders were present” wouldn’t change that fact. It would just mean that those people were not abiding by the rules of the college. I do remember seeing an interview with one person who stated he had been carrying at the time but was told to remain in his building and not allowed to leave by whoever was in charge.

  37. That’s why this ‘story’ sounds almost made up. I know lots of people who advocate for better gun controls (not taking guns away) like increased background checks. I’ve never heard any of them say or do anything even remotely threatening a gun owner. It just doesn’t make sense.

    This whole story sound like it was made up to me. It’s BS. What proof has the writer, Dave Dolbee, offered up to support his wild conclusion? A spoofed video? What REAL proof of physical evidence of threats to gun owners, by non-gun owners, is there? Post it, don’t ‘imply’ it as that’s cowardly journalism at best.

    And Maccabee, you made up that Chinese saying. Completely BS. Then you make an absolute conclusion on the basis of your made-up saying.

    Is this site just publishing BS for a reason?

    1. The proverb is “he who strikes the first blow admits he has lost the argument” – it wasn’t BS, he misquoted it

    2. I heard somewhere that it was a Chinese saying but forgot where. I wasn’t trying to make something up

    3. “This whole story sound like it was made up to me. It’s BS. What proof has the writer, Dave Dolbee, offered up to support his wild conclusion? A spoofed video? What REAL proof of physical evidence of threats to gun owners, by non-gun owners, is there? Post it, don’t ‘imply’ it as that’s cowardly journalism at best.”

      So if someone was to post a comment, video or some other type of internet “message” directed at you that was threatening you, or a member of your family, are you saying you would just ignore it and that it wouldn’t be “REAL” proof of a threat?

  38. Muslims by Koranic Law must put their Faith above everything else. This includes the ethical treatment of non-believers.Just because they live in a secular environment it does not free them from the basic elements of spreading Islam. Subjugation is their Major vehicle and whether or not you agree with them you will be subjugated.Love, law Co-operation with Christians or Jews means nothing. A peace treaty? Means nothing. Rape? Means nothing . Living amongst Christians ? Means nothing, As long as they subvert and then subjugate you to Lslam. Even if it takes centuries. Obama knows this and a disarmed population makes it all the easier for whatever it takes to happen

    1. Hey Steve b,

      Wanna know who else puts their Faith above everything else?

      That’s right, Christians.

      Like Christian Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who lied about meeting personally with the pope and refused to honor the Supreme Court, which is the basis for our US Constitution, which TRUMPS any and all religions.

      And online vitamin shuckster, part-time moron, preacher, and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee.

    2. First off, the supreme court does not make laws, they rule on whether they are constitutional. Secondly Kim Davis was and still is under her state constitution that says marriage is between a man and a women. And thirdly the federal government has no constitutional right to rule on marriage. If it doesn’t say it in the constitution, then the states decide (read the 10th amendment)

    3. “…Like Christian Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who lied about meeting personally with the pope and refused to honor the Supreme Court, which is the basis for our US Constitution, which TRUMPS any and all religions…”

      The Supreme Court is NOT “the basis for our US Constitution”.

    4. First: The US Supreme Court IS the LAST WORD on whether or not something is constitutional, and therefore lawful. I never said they ‘made laws’.

      The US Constitution guarantees me the right to not have to ‘deal with’ your religion, whatever it is.

      Secondly, Kentucky’s Constitution is totally trumped by the US Constitution. That’s how we get mail, have an army, rights to vote, etc.
      I’m from Kentucky, and you don’t want Kentucky runnin’ things for the country. Kentucky only does well under Democrat governors.

      If the Federal Government has no say in marriage, then I’ll just claim to be somebody’s husband, and take the money. The Constitution also doesn’t say we can have an Air Force. Or the right to travel.

    5. “The US Constitution guarantees me the right to not have to ‘deal with’ your religion, whatever it is.”

      I defy you to show me where, in the US Constitution, is guarantees you that right. The Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

      Secondly, Kentucky’s Constitution is totally trumped by the US Constitution…”

      Actually, that would depend on what you are talking about. In the Tenth Amendment, The constitution specifies “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” If it isn’t concerning something that is delegated to the Federal Government, the US Constitution DOES NOT trump the Kentucky Constitution.

      “…Kentucky only does well under Democrat governors….”

      I’m sure that is only a matter of opinion.

      “…The Constitution also doesn’t say we can have an Air Force. Or the right to travel.”

      The Constitution gives the Federal Government the responsibility of the defense of the United States. In that would fall the ability to create the Air Force. To not allow the creation of the Air Force because it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution would be asinine. The Constitution also DOES address the right to travel in the Privileges and Immunities claus which states: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

      Maybe you should google these things before you comment.

    6. @ Don P.

      Actually is DOES, Sir In Article VI of the Supremacy Clause.

      The Constitution does not contain any clause expressly providing that the States have the power to declare Federal Law Unconstitutional.

      Supporters of Nullification: State’s are NOT entitled to Nullify Federal Law. Any law that Interferes with a valid Federal Law is Unconstitutional, the Federal Law is Supreme over State Law…

    7. Secundius,

      Maybe you should thoroughly read what I wrote, in its entirety. Then you can try to tell me exactly what you think I got wrong. Just to make it easier for you, I’ll explain my statement.

      Beau made the comment: “Secondly, Kentucky’s Constitution is totally trumped by the US Constitution.”

      It should have been obvious that I was referring to that statement specifically, since I quoted it before I responded.

      My response was: “Actually, that would depend on what you are talking about. In the Tenth Amendment, The constitution specifies “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” If it isn’t concerning something that is delegated to the Federal Government, the US Constitution DOES NOT trump the Kentucky Constitution.”

      The Kentucky Constitution is not TOTALLY (did you see that word “totally”?) trumped by the US Constitution, since there are parts of the Kentucky Constitution pertaining to those things over which authority is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. According to the Tenth Amendment, those laws are NOT trumped by the US Constitution because the Constitution, by its own wording, has no authority over them. I neither stated nor implied that states have the power to declare Federal Law Unconstitutional or nullify federal law.

      Now please, tell me where my statement is wrong!

    8. Don P,

      OK, You’re wrong. I have an ex-business partner who tried that sh%^ in a Federal court a few years ago.

      Funny thing about Federal Courts . . . they take it very seriously when folks try to ‘imply’ that Federal judges don’t have standing in state laws that run afoul of US laws.

      My ex-partner is doing 14 years in a Federal pen for saying the same thing you’re spewin’. It’s BS. Not true.

      As an ex-lawyer, I’d love to see you spew this Tenth Amendment nonsense in front of a Federal judge. Snicker. . .

    9. OK smart guy, are you saying that the Tenth Amendment is worthless? Are there NO “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States”? I figured they put it in there for a reason, but I guess you’re much smarter than they were.

    10. Actually, you’re wrong on that one too. If the general government passes unconstitutional laws, it is the duty of the States to protect their respective citizens from illegal/unconstitutional laws. We the people have the last word as the contract to create the general government was between the people/States as long as the laws were in pursuance thereof to the Constitution. Nullification is the way to out a stop to a rogue government and each State is a sovereign entity unto itself, following the laws established by the general government so long as they are within the limits of the Constitution. The supremacy clause is something the traitors within have hoodwinked many about the ability to run roughshod over States Rights. Notice that it says: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
      There are a great many things not mentioned within the Constitution that the general government has no business getting into, they should be left to the States. As Don P. stated on the X Amend., the powers not delegated to the general government are few and far in between. You should look up Dr. Edwin Vieiras writings on this matter, it will shed some light and great info about exactly how limited their power is. Can we agree that the worthless three branches are definitely not on the side of the people as they are an illegitimate government and actually a for profit corporation stealing the life blood from any and all??? This stopped being a Constitutional Republic long ago and we need to reinstate as the founders meant it to be.

    11. Google it? Really? Wow.

      The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’

    12. Yes, Google. I was just suggesting something I thought you could handle.

      You stated: “The US Constitution guarantees me the right to not have to ‘deal with’ your religion, whatever it is.”

      My response was: “I defy you to show me where, in the US Constitution, is guarantees you that right. The Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.”

      The establishment of religion clause only covers the establishment and/or support of a religion by the government. It does not guarantee you freedom FROM religion. If you turn on the radio or turn on the TV you could come across a religious channel. Just go out of your house you could run into someone practicing their religion or see some type of religious symbol. You have no constitutionally guaranteed freedom FROM religion.

  39. “Does anyone else find it disturbing and completely unacceptable that many vocal members of anti-gun groups are continually threatening to rape, kill or otherwise harm legal gun owners and their family members? How do they get from guns are bad and kill people to someone should kill you because they do not agree with your politics? Worse yet, why don’t other anti-gunners stand up and call out these members from their own ranks?” Sounds a little islamic!!

    1. Amen brother I agree 100%. Btw there is no such thing as a “radical” Muslim, they’re are evangelical Muslims who act out their book to the “T”. The “moderate” Muslims are liberals as they don’t obey the Koran.

    2. @ Maccabee 2236.

      “Muslim”, like “Irish”, “German”, “Italian”, etc. IS NOT a “Religion” it’s an Ethnic Identity…

    3. Secundius,

      Say what? Here it is from Wikipedia.

      A Muslim, sometimes spelled Moslem,[1] relates to a person who follows the religion of Islam,[2] a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion based on the Quran. Muslims consider the Quran to be the verbatim word of God as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

      Or maybe this one is easier to understand. (read the last line)

      Islam (/ˈɪslaːm/;[note 1] Arabic: الإسلام‎, al-ʾIslām IPA: [ælʔɪsˈlæːm] ( listen)[note 2]) is a monotheistic, Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur’an, a religious text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Allāh), and, for the vast majority of adherents, by the teachings and normative example (called the sunnah, composed of accounts called hadith) of Muhammad (c. 570–8 June 632 CE), considered by most of them to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim (sometimes spelled “Moslem”).[1]

      “Muslim”, UNLIKE “Irish”, “German”, “Italian”, etc. IS NOT an Ethnic Identity, it is the name for a follower of the Islamic Religion.

    4. @ Don P.

      I’ve Muslim friend’s for the better part of twenty-years now, and ONLY two of them are Islamic. The other are Roman Catholic…

    5. Muslim:

      Dictionary.com
      1. of or relating to the religion, law, or civilization of Islam.
      noun, plural Muslims, Muslim.
      2. an adherent of Islam.

      Freedictionary.com
      1. also Mos·lem (mŏz′ləm, mŏs′-) A believer in or adherent of Islam.
      2. A member of the Nation of Islam; a Black Muslim.

      merriam-webster.com
      1: an adherent of Islam
      2: black muslim

    6. “There were ARAB’s going back as the Second Century BC. Eight-Hundred years before ISLAM was even Conceived…”

      Secundius,

      And what, exactly, does that statement have to do with the price of tea in China?… or with anything that has been said on this topic?

    7. Fred,

      Show us ANY proof you have that “many vocal members of anti-gun groups are continually threatening to rape, kill or otherwise harm legal gun owners and their family members”.

      Go ahead, we’ll wait for the proof of these crimes as we listen to the crickets.

      Has everyone on this board gone nuts?

  40. Anti-gunners attacking gun owners, isn’t that like a boy taunting a bear? I mean the anti-gunners are threatening people who know how to use a firearm. I’m not advocating violence like they are doing but I think that’s a DUMB way to get your point across. I heard a Chinese saying that the one who punches first in a arguement loses. This just goes to show you that the anti-gun group are running out of arguements.

    1. They don’t fear anything because they’re a bunch of nad-less fascists (er, progressives) – they talk a big game but aren’t brave enough to follow though with a face to face confrontation – like all liberals, they snipe their hate and less from the shadows and at best hope to incite their plantation followers to take the action they are to cowardly to perform

    2. Hey Archangel,

      I got a news flash for ya. I’m a liberal, progressive gun owner. And there are millions of us in America. Born and raised here.

      I’m also a combat veteran who’s been brave enough to endure Vietnam.

      And here you are, claiming I am a cowardly fascist that talks a big game.

      Son, you got some learnin’ to do. Your britches are just too big.
      You’re the cowardly hater. Hidin’ behind your keyboard, being brave with your fingers as you type.

      As a fellow American, I don’t deserve your crap and lopsided opinions.

    3. Beau, you may be all you say you are, but the fact that you are both a big time 2nd amendment supporter and big time liberal puts you in a minority amongst the electorate.

      The fact is, that a majority of “liberals”, “Progressives”, “Democrats”, and leftists in this country are for much stricter controls on private ownership of firearms. That is a fact. It is also why practically every major democrat votes in lock step with calls for more gun control. When is the last time a democrat presidential candidate called for laxer controls on firrearms? Clinton? Obama? Hillary and Bernie are calling for more controls.

      I’m not saying that you are cowardly, I don’t know you, and there may be millions of “liberal” gun owners, but they will invariably vote for a democrat, and part of the democrat platform is to wheedle away at gun rights.

      Please explain where I am wrong.

    4. “…liberal, progressive gun owner…”

      Hasn’t anyone ever told you that’s an oxymoron?

      “I’m also a combat veteran who’s been brave enough to endure Vietnam.”

      John Kerry was also in Viet Nam and I would have no problem calling him out on being a moron. I haven’t decided who was a worse Secretary of State, him or Clinton. As a military retiree, I thank you for your service. But having been in the military service doesn’t automatically get you a “get out of jail free card” and exempt you from criticism of saying stupid things or associating yourself with groups who say and/or do stupid things.

      “As a fellow American, I don’t deserve your crap and lopsided opinions.”

      If you were in the military, you probably remember that people come to the aid of other people in their (term dependent on your branch), their branch, their country when in a fight with someone who isn’t “on their side”. That might, however, depend on how that person got into the fight. The discussion here, however, is about firearms. Most, if not all, of the people on this site are probably Americans. If someone who isn’t an American decides to criticize something you say, we might come to your defense… but it depends on what your comment was. Being an American, just like having been in the military, as I stated above, doesn’t get you a “get out of jail free card” and exempt you from criticism of saying stupid things or associating yourself with groups who say and/or do stupid things. Maybe our opinions are “lop-sided”, but our “lop-sided opinions” are due to the the lop sided statistics. Look through the history of our laws (federal, state and local) and note how many of the anti-gun laws were created by liberals (progressive, democrat or whatever term you want). Liberals can take claim to the vast majority of anti-gun laws. The first anti-gun laws were imposed by the King of England, we didn’t like him either. Those laws were a big part of why we had the Revolutionary War. I don’t understand why anyone who is actually pro-gun would associate themselves with an anti-gun group and, if they did, why they would have any questions or complaints about other pro-gun people criticizing said group. Clinton claimed to be pro-gun and gave us the AWB which is one big reason pro-gunners are critical of anyone who claims to be a liberal AND pro-gun. We throw a lot of “crap” at liberals which is generally justified. If you don’t like being grouped with them, don’t associate with them… or at least don’t try to justify their actions. Liberals come up with “common-sense solutions” every time there is a shooting. Unfortunately, those “solutions” would have done nothing to prevent the shooting they supposedly are a solution for.

    5. @ Don P.

      But you would “Blindly Follow” a Moron like Dick Cheney, who got FIVE Deferments and thought serving in Vietnam was a “Total Waist of Him Precious Time”. Huhhh “Give Me Three-Months of Hard Fighting, and the Iraqi People Will Love Us”. Boy the REALLY, REALLY LOVED US, DIDN’T THEY…

    6. “But you would “Blindly Follow” a Moron like Dick Cheney, who got FIVE Deferments and thought serving in Vietnam was a “Total Waist of Him Precious Time”. Huhhh “Give Me Three-Months of Hard Fighting, and the Iraqi People Will Love Us”. Boy the REALLY, REALLY LOVED US, DIDN’T THEY…”

      Secundius,

      How did you get to Cheney? Is this an example of that Democrat mantra “Lie, Deflect and Obfuscate” that I’ve heard about? Are you trying to deflect? Or maybe its that Cheney fetish I’ve heard you liberals have but emphatically deny? I mentioned Kerry since he was also in Viet Nam and I would have no problem criticizing him, even if he had been in Viet Nam. It was just so that you know I don’t give anyone a pass just because they were in Viet Nam. Where is your segue to get to Cheney?

      I guess the bright side is that you didn’t follow the stereotypical liberal procedure of going to character assassination if you can’t argue the topic at hand, but maybe you would have if you thought you knew something about me that you could criticize me about. But deflecting to Cheney? Come on, even you can do better than that. By the way, the word you were looking for is “waste”, not “waist”.

    7. @ Don P.

      Dick Cheney, is a “One Man Road Show”. He doesn’t need an Outside Source for Character Assassination. He does a Pretty Good Job, Doing it to Himself…

    8. “Dick Cheney, is a “One Man Road Show”. He doesn’t need an Outside Source for Character Assassination. He does a Pretty Good Job, Doing it to Himself…”

      Secundius,

      Do you not even READ a post before you comment on it? Or is this still just a continuation of the attempt to deflection the topic to Cheney?

    9. Seriously Secundus! You are right.
      Dick Cheney was the ultimate CHICKENHAWK. Too afraid to fight, but he doesn’t mind sending you, or your kids, into war. Calling John Kerry anything but a hero is disgraceful and no serious veteran would ever say that. Shame on any punk who says so.

      Fortunately, for most of you fear mongers, your guns will not be confiscated ever, but the gun industry (of which I am a part, admittedly) has profited HUGELY from stirring this exact fear. Shame on the NRA too. They used to be about gun safety. Today, they are nothing but a lobbying arm for manufacturers like me.

      Lastly, and this is for Don P – if Bernie Sanders is not your new President, then get ready for President Clinton. Republicans, led by that strawhaired dufus loudmouth chickenhawk Donald Trump are failing badly at everything, but especially bad at stopping Obama. On top of that he fixed the Republican messes you left after the 1st Clinton left us a big deficit surplus, which Republicans pissed through fast.

      Republicans don’t even trust Republicans anymore.

    10. “Calling John Kerry anything but a hero is disgraceful and no serious veteran would ever say that.”

      That’s funny!

      Beau… Are you aware of Kerry’s testimony of war atrocities in Viet Nam as basically being a matter of policy. I guess you have no problem with someone saying things like that. You go on thinking he’s a great guy if you want.

      What exactly is a “deficit surplus”?

    11. @ Don P.

      Disliking John Kerry because of His Politics, doesn’t make him any less of a War Hero. “I CAN’T STAND”, Senator John S McCain the II, the Politician. But I Respect him as a War Hero. Atrocities in Vietnam, are Public Record. Just Like the Ones committed during the Civil War, WW2, Iraqi, Afghanistan, etc.

      Rules of War:
      Rule Number One, Innocent People Die.
      Rule Number Two, You Can’t Change Rule Number One…

    12. So do you consider Bowe Bergdahl and Benedict Arnold as war heroes too. I’m not trying to compare them to Kerry, but they were also in the US Military and I’m just trying to find out exactly where your limit is.

    13. @ Don P.

      Soldiers WALK OFF THE LINE, all the Time. It NOTHING NEW, Should he go to Prison, “YES”. Executed NO. Benedict Arnold, TRIED to Destroyer the Continental Government for Personal Satisfaction and Wealth. Bergdahl, MADE a STUPID Mistake. It’s NOT A “TREASONABLE” Offense…

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

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.