NRA Supporters Launch Vicious, Misogynistic Twitter Attack On Gun Reform Leader
When Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, was blocked by the NRA on Twitter yesterday, she tweeted it. It shall come as a surprise to no one ever that that was met with a slew of vicious misogynistic remarks by NRA supporters.
The mother of 5 frightens them that much. She’s a beautiful and intelligent woman, so naturally, she’s a threat.
It started with this tweet.
Naturally, that innocuous tweet became a platform to attack the Gun Sense advocate by NRA supporters. The hashtag #ImBlockedByShannonWatts started trending on Twitter.
The alleged human responsible for creating that hashtag is none other than Julie Golob, world shooting champion and author of the book “Shooting While Pregnant.” No, really.
So Ms. Watts is retweeting some vulgar responses to her one tweet.
Oh, this is such a winning strategy.
And this tweet by Katie Pavlich gave the onslaught some legs:
NRA supporters, I have some advice for you. If you want to appear to be female-friendly, don’t call a woman a “Bitch”, a “cunt”, “twat’ or tell her she needs to “get back in the kitchen.”
Include “bimbo” to the list of things not to call a woman.
Ms. Watts isn’t too worried about the vicious attack.
Bring it. Not scared. Won’t be bullied. Blocked by the #NRA @MomsDemand #gunsense pic.twitter.com/wsQATfcr2a
— Shannon (@shannonrwatts) December 27, 2014
Big thanks to my pal out there for collecting the tweets. You rock.
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
William December 28th, 2014 at 10:19
So let’s see if I got this. NRA sheep are attacking a woman who leads an anti gun group. yet…YET, these same folks faithfully send their membership dues to an organization whose board includes a pedophile, and convicted poacher who crapped his pants to avoid military service (Nugent), AND an airport bathroom Romeo (Larry Craig).
Then of course there’s Ollie North.
So you were expecting what?
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 11:20
I’m just curious as to why you assume that everyone that got mad at the woman is a NRA member. Maybe they are just supporters of the 2nd Amendment.
arc99 December 28th, 2014 at 11:29
My question then would be why do these “supporters of the 2nd Amendment” worship a draft dodging pedophile like Ted Nugent but resort to vile name-calling against a woman who is doing nothing other than exercising her 1st amendment rights.
I am a gun owner and about as liberal as it gets. I think the same canbe said about William and as gun owners we want absolutely nothing to do with the either the NRA or the vulgar firearms fetishists who resort to such language
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 11:31
Who said they worship Ted? He’s nuts.
arc99 December 28th, 2014 at 11:33
the complete absence of any criticism of Nugent’s past on any pro-gun board.
denial that he did in fact dodge the draft or have sex with underage girls.
his prominence in NRA sponsored shows and appearances with Republican politicians.
your denial withstanding, your opinion about Nugent is not the majority view among 2nd amendment advocacy groups
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 11:35
Clinton dodged the draft and fooled around on his wife and got some chick to blow him in the white house while he stuffed cigars in her vag. He’s well revered.
William December 28th, 2014 at 11:34
Yet he’s on the NRA board of directors. If by “nuts” you mean mentally unstable, then why does he have a gun, much less many guns?
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 11:33
I cannot stand Nugent and wish the NRA would distance themselves from him.
Nothing else really to add.
As far as your question about name calling, the same happens from the anti-gun activists as well. I am the admin of a page that is literally nothing but threats of violence from anti-gun activists. However, I am intelligent enough to realize that this type of sociopathic behavior is not indicative of the typical anti-gun activist.
The same is happening here. Cherry picked comments in an attempt to demonize the subject, which is quite clearly the hypocrisy of Shannon Watts, a bought and paid for PR executive.
arc99 December 28th, 2014 at 11:35
and the NRA is a bought and paid for PR organization.so I fail to see how Ms Watts is doing anything differently than the NRA.
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 11:38
Indeed you do fail to see it.
When the NRA markets themselves as a Stay at home mommy, then you would be correct.
arc99 December 28th, 2014 at 11:41
I am already correct and you fail to see it but thanks for demonstrating why this liberal gun owner wants absolutely nothing to do with the NRA or its apologists.
even “reasonable” arguments like yours must rely on denigrating someone’s integrity instead of debating the issue at hand.
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 11:45
Whose integrity am I denigrating? Shannon Watts? Absolutely! Not only does she lack integrity, but it is easily proven, which was the point of this hashtag to begin with. However, that is being overlooked out of partisan zealotry in a need to demonize those calling her out.
If you believe that these comments demonstrate the beliefs of a typical gun rights advocate, then following that logic I am to believe that the typical anti-gun advocate wishes death on our families, because I have an entire page of those sorts of comments collected.
You are relying on manufactured outrage so that you can overlook the hypocrisy and outright disingenuous stance taken by Watts.
arc99 December 28th, 2014 at 11:52
“manufactured outrage”?
you mean like the paranoid fantasies of the UN confiscating guns?
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 11:57
No. That would also be manufactured outrage.
It would also be a completely different topic, which seems to be a pretty common thread here, right along with deflection and cognitive dissonance.
You are ignoring the point of the hashtag because it demonstrates exactly how much of a disingenuous shill Shannon Watts is. The only way you can ignore it is by demonizing the people using it. The only way to demonize the people using it is to use cherry picked comments by the worst possible examples you can find and whipping up some outrage. This allows you to dismiss the entire point.
Echo chambers must be fun to live in.
Sam December 28th, 2014 at 11:34
I am a long time gun owner also and I am against the NRA as well.
They have become lobbyist for the weapon manufactures which endangering our rights by endorsing nuts like Ted and ignoring common scene solutions.
William December 28th, 2014 at 11:37
Thanks Sam, I feel the same way. If the second amendment ever gets changed/repealed it won’t be because of some liberal. It will be because there is no quarter given or even dialog offered to come together and figure out a way to stop this bloodshed.
William December 28th, 2014 at 11:19
So let’s see if I got this. NRA sheep are attacking a woman who leads an anti gun group. yet…YET, these same folks faithfully send their membership dues to an organization whose board includes a pedophile, and convicted poacher who crapped his pants to avoid military service (Nugent), AND an airport bathroom Romeo (Larry Craig).
Then of course there’s Ollie North.
So you were expecting what?
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 12:20
I’m just curious as to why you assume that everyone that got mad at the woman is a NRA member. Maybe they are just supporters of the 2nd Amendment.
arc99 December 28th, 2014 at 12:29
My question then would be why do these “supporters of the 2nd Amendment” worship a draft dodging pedophile like Ted Nugent but resort to vile name-calling against a woman who is doing nothing other than exercising her 1st amendment rights.
I am a gun owner and about as liberal as it gets. I think the same canbe said about William and as gun owners we want absolutely nothing to do with the either the NRA or the vulgar firearms fetishists who resort to such language
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 12:31
Who said they worship Ted? He’s nuts.
arc99 December 28th, 2014 at 12:33
the complete absence of any criticism of Nugent’s past on any pro-gun board.
denial that he did in fact dodge the draft or have sex with underage girls.
his prominence in NRA sponsored shows and appearances with Republican politicians.
your denial withstanding, your opinion about Nugent is not the majority view among 2nd amendment advocacy groups
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 12:35
Clinton dodged the draft and fooled around on his wife and got some chick to blow him in the white house while he stuffed cigars in her vag. He’s well revered.
William December 28th, 2014 at 12:34
Yet he’s on the NRA board of directors. If by “nuts” you mean mentally unstable, then why does he have a gun, much less many guns?
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 12:33
I cannot stand Nugent and wish the NRA would distance themselves from him.
Nothing else really to add.
As far as your question about name calling, the same happens from the anti-gun activists as well. I am the admin of a page that is literally nothing but threats of violence from anti-gun activists. However, I am intelligent enough to realize that this type of sociopathic behavior is not indicative of the typical anti-gun activist.
The same is happening here. Cherry picked comments in an attempt to demonize the subject, which is quite clearly the hypocrisy of Shannon Watts, a bought and paid for PR executive.
arc99 December 28th, 2014 at 12:35
and the NRA is a bought and paid for PR organization.so I fail to see how Ms Watts is doing anything differently than the NRA.
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 12:38
Indeed you do fail to see it.
When the NRA markets themselves as a Stay at home mommy, then you would be correct.
arc99 December 28th, 2014 at 12:41
I am already correct and you fail to see it but thanks for demonstrating why this liberal gun owner wants absolutely nothing to do with the NRA or its apologists.
even “reasonable” arguments like yours must rely on denigrating someone’s integrity instead of debating the issue at hand.
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 12:45
Whose integrity am I denigrating? Shannon Watts? Absolutely! Not only does she lack integrity, but it is easily proven, which was the point of this hashtag to begin with. However, that is being overlooked out of partisan zealotry in a need to demonize those calling her out.
If you believe that these comments demonstrate the beliefs of a typical gun rights advocate, then following that logic I am to believe that the typical anti-gun advocate wishes death on our families, because I have an entire page of those sorts of comments collected.
You are relying on manufactured outrage so that you can overlook the hypocrisy and outright disingenuous stance taken by Watts.
arc99 December 28th, 2014 at 12:52
“manufactured outrage”?
you mean like the paranoid fantasies of the UN confiscating guns?
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 12:57
No. That would also be manufactured outrage.
It would also be a completely different topic, which seems to be a pretty common thread here, right along with deflection and cognitive dissonance.
You are ignoring the point of the hashtag because it demonstrates exactly how much of a disingenuous shill Shannon Watts is. The only way you can ignore it is by demonizing the people using it. The only way to demonize the people using it is to use cherry picked comments by the worst possible examples you can find and whipping up some outrage. This allows you to dismiss the entire point.
Echo chambers must be fun to live in.
Sam December 28th, 2014 at 12:34
I am a long time gun owner also and I am against the NRA as well.
They have become lobbyist for the weapon manufactures which endangering our rights by endorsing nuts like Ted and ignoring common scene solutions.
William December 28th, 2014 at 12:37
Thanks Sam, I feel the same way. If the second amendment ever gets changed/repealed it won’t be because of some liberal. It will be because there is no quarter given or even dialog offered to come together and figure out a way to stop this bloodshed.
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 11:06
Interesting that you completely ignore the point of the hashtag…which was that she is being hypocritical (nothing new there) by claiming to be “winning” because she was blocked…at the same time as blocking tens if not hundreds of thousands of posters on her page.
You really don’t see the irony in that?
As far as cherry picking nasty comments by nasty people…every argument has them on both sides of a debate. I am the admin of a page that is literally nothing more than threats of violence from anti-gun folks. Does that mean that anti-gun folks are violent sociopaths? Well no, of course not. Not anymore than some disgusting comments from gun rights supporters make us all misogynists.
I know logic isn’t really a valued subject in these typed of places, but maybe intellectual honesty is?
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 12:06
Interesting that you completely ignore the point of the hashtag…which was that she is being hypocritical (nothing new there) by claiming to be “winning” because she was blocked…at the same time as blocking tens if not hundreds of thousands of posters on her page.
You really don’t see the irony in that?
As far as cherry picking nasty comments by nasty people…every argument has them on both sides of a debate. I am the admin of a page that is literally nothing more than threats of violence from anti-gun folks. Does that mean that anti-gun folks are violent sociopaths? Well no, of course not. Not anymore than some disgusting comments from gun rights supporters make us all misogynists.
I know logic isn’t really a valued subject in these typed of places, but maybe intellectual honesty is?
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 11:09
The NRA used to be an organization that was concerned with gun safety, and taught classes, encouraging responsible gun ownership, until the gun makers needed a big mouthpiece to encourage the sale of moar gunz, bigger gunz, all by spawning a fear of boogie men coming to take their steely rods away, and more boogie men invading their homes, etc….
Now the NRA is little more than a conveyance system to spread terror among the ill informed ammosexuals who can’t even go to the bathroom without feeling that cold steel rod attached to their person.
https://7e8c.https.cdn.softlayer.net/807E8C/origin.theweek.com/img/dir_0089/44515_cartoon_main/the-nras-little-friend.jpg?209
William December 28th, 2014 at 11:14
I was a member. I used to enjoy the American Rifle magazine. When the NRA went from being a group of sportsmen to a lobby group they abandoned a lot of their ideals. I guess I’m in good company.
Sam December 28th, 2014 at 11:47
The only Bush that has a hit of integrity.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 13:35
And I wish him a speedy recovery.
Sam December 28th, 2014 at 20:13
What’s up Stoney ,
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 11:19
They quite literally still do all of the above.
It seems you have allowed your partisanship to overtake your researching ability.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 11:23
Wanting sensible gun control is hardly “partisanship”, and the NRA has fought every sensible law that exists, including forbidding the CDC from gathering info on gun deaths, and here in Florida, making a LAW that forbids pediatricians from discussing the presence of weapons in the homes where small children reside.
Your blindness is duly noted regarding this very ugly organization.
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 11:26
“Wanting sensible gun control is hardly “partisanship””
Correct.
However, claiming that the NRA is no longer “concerned with gun safety, and taught classes, encouraging responsible gun ownership” is hyper-partisan nonsense. They still do both of the these.
Reread your post. Seriously, take a step back and reread it. Then ask yourself if there is anything reasonable or civil about it, or if it is just a partisan rant.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 11:27
The NRA is more like a terrorist organization than any that sponsors “safety”…and you have the audacity to call anyone partisan?
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 11:39
Yes. Read your posts and then read my posts. Attempt to do it with objectivity. Then ask yourself who is the partisan zealot.
I will give you a hint: it is the person referring to those with whom they disagree as “terrorists.”
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 11:43
No,I disagree with many people and organizations, but I stand by my statement that the NRA is more like a terrorist organization…they do spread fear, hatred, and terror.
Sam December 28th, 2014 at 11:44
The NRA may not be a terrorist organization
,But they protect the rights for terrorist and criminals to purchase guns easily. Most gun shows are cash and carry with used guns and no back ground check.
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 12:55
Then go their favorite websites and spread the word about sensible gun control and come back and tell us about the response you get.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 12:09
The NRA used to be an organization that was concerned with gun safety, and taught classes, encouraging responsible gun ownership, until the gun makers needed a big mouthpiece to encourage the sale of moar gunz, bigger gunz, all by spawning a fear of boogie men coming to take their steely rods away, and more boogie men invading their homes, etc….
Now the NRA is little more than a conveyance system to spread terror among the ill informed ammosexuals who can’t even go to the bathroom without feeling that cold steel rod attached to their person.
https://7e8c.https.cdn.softlayer.net/807E8C/origin.theweek.com/img/dir_0089/44515_cartoon_main/the-nras-little-friend.jpg?209
William December 28th, 2014 at 12:14
I was a member. I used to enjoy the American Rifle magazine. When the NRA went from being a group of sportsmen to a lobby group they abandoned a lot of their ideals. I guess I’m in good company.
Sam December 28th, 2014 at 12:47
The only Bush that has a hit of integrity.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:35
And I wish him a speedy recovery.
Sam December 28th, 2014 at 21:13
What’s up Stoney ,
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 12:19
They quite literally still do all of the above.
It seems you have allowed your partisanship to overtake your researching ability.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 12:23
Wanting sensible gun control is hardly “partisanship”, and the NRA has fought every sensible law that exists, including forbidding the CDC from gathering info on gun deaths, and here in Florida, making a LAW that forbids pediatricians from discussing the presence of weapons in the homes where small children reside.
Your blindness is duly noted regarding this very ugly organization.
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 12:26
“Wanting sensible gun control is hardly “partisanship””
Correct.
However, claiming that the NRA is no longer “concerned with gun safety, and taught classes, encouraging responsible gun ownership” is hyper-partisan nonsense. They still do both of the these.
Reread your post. Seriously, take a step back and reread it. Then ask yourself if there is anything reasonable or civil about it, or if it is just a partisan rant.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 12:27
The NRA is more like a terrorist organization than any that sponsors “safety”…and you have the audacity to call anyone partisan?
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 12:39
Yes. Read your posts and then read my posts. Attempt to do it with objectivity. Then ask yourself who is the partisan zealot.
I will give you a hint: it is the person referring to those with whom they disagree as “terrorists.”
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 12:43
No,I disagree with many people and organizations, but I stand by my statement that the NRA is more like a terrorist organization…they do spread fear, hatred, and terror.
Sam December 28th, 2014 at 12:44
The NRA may not be a terrorist organization
,But they protect the rights for terrorist and criminals to purchase guns easily. Most gun shows are cash and carry with used guns and no back ground check.
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 13:55
Then go their favorite websites and spread the word about sensible gun control and come back and tell us about the response you get.
JP2012 December 28th, 2014 at 11:10
So Monsanto Mommy tries to play the victim card against the NRA, gets called on the hypocrisy since her group bans everyone with a dissenting opinion, then plays the “war on women” victim card.
JP2012 December 28th, 2014 at 12:10
So Monsanto Mommy tries to play the victim card against the NRA, gets called on the hypocrisy since her group bans everyone with a dissenting opinion, then plays the “war on women” victim card.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 11:16
One of the very serious symptons of acute ammosexualism is gun-arrea, and there seem to be a few here with said affliction.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 12:16
One of the very serious symptons of acute ammosexualism is gun-arrea, and there seem to be a few here with said affliction.
raincheck December 28th, 2014 at 11:17
The main reason “gun humpers” are so afraid of background checks, is because they can’t answer no to the questions, like “are you addicted to drugs?” “have you ever been arrested for spousal abuse.. etc.
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 11:18
The Brady Bill makes everyone go through a background check when they purchases a firearm from a dealer. It goes through the FBI Database. Have you ever bought a firearm for home protection?
raincheck December 28th, 2014 at 11:19
I sure have… why do you ask?
JP2012 December 28th, 2014 at 11:20
Talk about hypocrisy, the advocate for more background checks has their profile settings at “private.” What are you afraid of? Are you a sexual predator, child pornographer?
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 11:21
No, but we have encountered vicious trolls who have stalked, and attempted to find our real identities…
raincheck December 28th, 2014 at 11:27
You mean like JP2012?
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 11:28
There are a few here who do seem rather nasty…
raincheck December 28th, 2014 at 11:26
“What are you afraid of? Are you a sexual predator, child pornographer?” Hahahaha
I guess if I was, it would have shown up on the back ground check, now wouldn’t it? I have NOTHING to fear from the authorities..
Did you have fun posting that crap? Pathetic little man
William December 28th, 2014 at 11:26
What does internet privacy have to so with purchasing a firearm? (I can’t wait for this answer)
William December 28th, 2014 at 11:31
“Are you a sexual predator,”
Funny that you mention that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/ted-nugents-jailbait-problem_b_4840060.html
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 11:44
Please, please tell me you found JP2012 arrest record.
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 11:33
Jp2012, your comments are just STUIPD. Your code words might work on a pro-NRA site but not here. Grow-up.
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 11:33
Why are you attacking this man?
raincheck December 28th, 2014 at 11:39
Are you seriously THAT stupid?
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 11:41
OK why are you attacking me? DO you always insult people who ask legitimate questions?
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 13:37
I have a question for you Sarah do you always upvote yourself?
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:22
21 comments in it’s history..
Wanna bet all of them are here, within the last 24 hours?…
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 17:02
uhuh no way Stoney ’cause I had scrolled over her avi hours ago. ;)
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 17:03
so the bets off?….;)
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 17:26
yep ;)
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 11:42
Really getting tired of your self-righteous indignation yet you say nothing of the horrible things said to Shannon, you’re some kind of gal.
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 11:49
I have no doubt. Most people hate having their blatant hypocrisy waved around in front of them.
The things said to Watts were disgusting. Unfortunately that is the nature of internet debate and anonymity. Would you care to see some of the death threats and wishes for violence to my children from Anti-Gun activists? Does that have any more bearing on the subject or lump them together as well? Or is it simply cherry picking nasty comments in order to demonize the whole?
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 12:10
Carla Akins, amen. I noticed Sarah Bowles has stated NOTHING about the awful and rude things written to Shannon at all !
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 11:47
He said something really dumb and now you are asking a dumb question, legitimate maybe, but dumb.
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 12:08
Because his code words are inflammatory and stupid. I hope I answered your question.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 11:41
You’re done.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 11:42
thank you.
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 11:47
Yet the insults from those who believe as you do remain.
Interesting. Or hypocritical. Maybe a bit of both.
raincheck December 28th, 2014 at 11:42
Must have hit a nerve
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 11:46
Maybe he was asking for a friend…
raincheck December 28th, 2014 at 15:47
;)
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 13:14
Why are there only 48 stars on your flag avatar?
Is this some sort of message?
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 14:30
Actually it only has 36 stars. I wonder what alternate reality he is from?
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 11:20
If only that applied to all gun sales.
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 11:30
Criminals will not go through legit means to get a gun. The guy that shot the two NYPD officers used a stolen hand gun with the serial number shaved off.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 11:31
PRIVATE gun sales go on everywhere, with no questions asked, just the right amount of cash.
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 11:32
So what. That is no different that me selling you my dresser.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 11:34
If you believe that, then you are truly deluded.
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 11:46
Believe what? I”ve purchased several firearms to include AR15’s. They are really fun to shoot too. Not so much kick back like a shot gun. I’ve had to fill out MANY FBI background check forms. It asks a lot of questions regarding your background and then it is cross checked with the FBI database.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 12:04
But not the right questions, which is why the Navy Yard shooter was able to purchase his gun.
anothertoothpick December 28th, 2014 at 12:46
AR15?
Isn’t that the same kind of weapon that the Lanza kid used on his mother? Shot her in the head.
On his way to slaughtering school kids.
William December 28th, 2014 at 11:40
Because no one ever walked into a school and killed 20 kids with a dresser.
See?
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 11:44
No but a man did walk into a school and hit a girl in the head with the claw part of a hammer. Guns are not the problem. It’s the people who decided that it will be the tool they use in their destruction. Hell buddy from sandy hook could have blown the entire school up by messing with the natural gas intake to the building if it had one.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 11:46
But was he able to kill 20 of them, in under 5 minutes?
William December 28th, 2014 at 11:52
“No but a man did walk into a school and hit a girl in the head with the claw part of a hammer”
Really? You want to go with that as your way of diverting from the fact that a person shot 20 little kids?
Seriously?
Oh do continue.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 12:03
She can’t. I didn’t mean to ban her, my hand twitched. It was an accidental banning.
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 13:32
lol
Beaugrand_RTMC December 28th, 2014 at 12:40
ONE person committing a murder does not negate the THOUSANDS of murders committed with guns. What an incredibly silly thing to say. You just weakened your argument and made yourself look stupid.
mrsgunka December 28th, 2014 at 15:54
More stupid!
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 11:45
Your dresser has the ability to commit mass killings?
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 13:41
Is it a six drawer or a ten drawer? It may need time to reload. LOL
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 13:43
Now that made me laugh~!..
Thank you!
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 13:50
It is truly a foolish choice of weaponry. Unless IKEA has come up with automatic drawer closings … XD
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 11:32
Sarah, which all the more proves America needs tougher gun control laws such as Washington State just passed requiring background checks on even private gun sales.
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 11:33
You can tighten the laws all day long but I’m telling you it will not matter. Not since people figured out how to 3D print weapons.
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 11:44
So you think we should do nothing? That makes no sense at all.
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 11:49
Responsible gun owners already know how to handle firearms and they also teach their children what the gun is capable of and why it is not a toy.
Mental illness played a huge role in every major shooting that happened. Probably all were on anti depressants. Have you read the side affects to those things?
anothertoothpick December 28th, 2014 at 11:55
There is no such thing as a “responsible” gun owner; there are only human guns owners. And any human can at times be responsible or irresponsible, careful or careless, calm or angry, sober or drunk.
To assume that there is such a thing as a human who is responsible 100 percent of the time is just a foolish myth.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 13:06
Right On~!
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 11:56
Too bad there are so many irresponsible gun owners out there. Guns are routinely left out while loaded where anyone can pick them up. These ‘accidents’ happen all the time.
Foundryman December 28th, 2014 at 12:32
Which is why they are not “accidents”…An accident is when you fall off a ladder, it’s not an accident when your 3 year old shoots your 4 year old through the head with the gun they found….
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 13:43
So I guess when a kid accidentally falls into a pool, or drinks poison from under the sink, that’s not an accident either?
OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 13:47
Get back to us when the purpose of the pool or poison is to kill many people in a very short time.
Plus, the home owner’s insurance would go up with the pool, so let’s have gun owner’s insurance and let the market sort it out.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 13:48
It’s called negligence actually. As a grown up, you are suppose to be aware of such dangers, especially ones that are considered deadly. Leaving poison under a sink would be a stupid thing to do, just like leaving a loaded weapon in reach of the same kid.
Foundryman December 28th, 2014 at 13:57
Well, actually, they would not be accidents either if the “responsible” adult were to leave them where a child can get to them.
Sort of like the open carry group who would call it an “accident” if they would drop or discharge a round and hit someone else in the oreo aisle….
The fact is, there are no gun accidents, no accidental shootings, no accidental deaths, each event is deliberate, since guns are designed to do only one thing. To use one of Wayne’s anecdotes, It’s certainly not the guns fault is it?
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 13:58
Invalid argument. Cars, pools poison all these things are very heavily regulated and as such these numbers have dramatically dropped. On second thought, you just made my point for me.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:16
High Five~!
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:15
Key words…(So I guess)…
That,s what happens when “you guess”..
William December 28th, 2014 at 11:57
“Mental illness played a huge role in every major shooting that happened. Probably all were on anti depressants. Have you read the side affects to those things”
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 12:05
It’s like debating with an anti-vaxxer.
Foundryman December 28th, 2014 at 12:28
There are no responsible gun owners as long as they go around supporting idiots to walk around endangering others with loaded guns across their backs.
It’s impossible for you or anyone to call themselves “responsible” if they are so paranoid and scared they think they have to sleep with a gun next to them.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 13:39
“Responsible gun owners already know how to handle firearms…”
Just for shits and giggles, I googled cops son shoot self and guess what popped up?
http://myfox8.com/2014/08/06/off-duty-police-officer-accidentally-shoots-himself-3-year-old-son/
and this one
http://www.wflx.com/story/13036153/nc-toddler-accidentally-shoots-himself-with-police-officers-gun
and this one
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/04/17181047-4-year-old-son-of-michigan-sheriffs-deputy-accidentally-shoots-and-kills-himself?lite
That was just the top three and they’re all officer’s weapons. Aren’t they suppose to be responsible gun owners? Just sayin’.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 11:49
You are obviously oblivious to the fact that other countries in the world with firm gun control do not have the kind of death and injury rate that the US has…it can be done.
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 11:50
I’m not concerned about other countries. I’m concerned about what happens in my country.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 11:50
FACTS MATTER.
Obewon December 28th, 2014 at 12:02
The 34% of US households owning guns commit 2/3+ of all American homicides and suicides.
Reducing gun ownership through buybacks and background checks on all guns and ammo sold saves lives by eliminating 2/3 of Homicides and suicides: “Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59%, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65% in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
fahvel December 28th, 2014 at 13:19
yours is the kind of chauvinism that will keep the world at war forever – not only dense but you, without even knowing it, may be an evil person – “don’t care”, what a horrid attitude.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 13:25
“I’m not concerned about other countries”..
This comes as no surprise.
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 13:42
Eyelashviper, check out some facts: https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/photos/a.130184327167571.1073741828.123061011213236/299579676894701/?type=1&theater
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 13:47
Meaningless statistics are up over 1.5% this month over last months meaningless statistics.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 13:52
I just love a meme that’s made to look like something that really isn’t and then presented as fact. Now my day is complete.
William December 28th, 2014 at 14:39
Ever see this one?
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 14:46
Well, there’s your problem right there in the lower left hand corner. Fox is not a channel I watch, unless it’s a clip on The Daily Show.
Foundryman December 28th, 2014 at 14:46
I see what they did there….That must be why FoxNews is such s great place to get information…
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 00:26
Yes, it is a common occurrence on the Moms Demand and Everytown facebook page.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 08:35
I really wouldn’t know. I don’t do Facebook. Tried it, but it’s like a bog. You can get sucked down into the muck if you’re not careful.
OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 13:50
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 14:38
FACTS??????
Some nameless facebook page with a useless graph…
sure, sure,.
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 00:23
Yes. Anyone with 30 minutes and a program called EXCEL can easily re-create the graph for themselves.
Now instead of just foo-fooing it because it doesn’t line up with a list of cherry picked countries, we could actually learn something more interesting: Culture has a bigger impact on the crime rate than the number of firearms owned in a country.
It seems my original link only shows the image. Here’s the facebook link that also shows the authors sources for the data. http://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/photos/a.130184327167571.1073741828.123061011213236/299579676894701/?type=1&theater
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 12:09
Sarah, just wrong. Your logic is fallacious and 3rd grade … it begs the question, why have any laws at all if ‘some’ folks will break them. Again, your logic is flawed.
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 15:15
And with no record of who owns what of the 300 million guns in private hands, now do you propose to determine who owned that gun in the first place? All one has to do is show up in court and say I’ve never seen that gun in my life. You can’t prove otherwise because you have no proof one ever owned it. Your court case swirls down the toilet bowl. Here is how the Washington State law works: Law Abiding Citizen A takes Law Abiding Citizen B to an FFL, pays a fee for a background check on Law Abiding Citizen B. Now, Criminal A sells a gun to Criminal B on the street, no questions asked!
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 15:32
David, your non sequitur example is embarrassing. You see no holes in your logic ? Again, let me try this again: No one is claiming that Mandatory Background checks will work 100%. No one. Your argument is specious and 3rd grade logic. We could apply your fallacious logic and then ask the question why have any laws at all. For example, based on your logic, why have speed laws because some ‘bad guys’ will speed ? Why have laws against robbing a bank because some ‘bad guys’ will do it anyway ? If you put forth your logic in a traditional Classical Logic course in College, you would receive a ‘F’ grade. Again, it’s a non sequitur you put forth and typical of the NRA minions.
btw: Background Checks on purchasing guns do work regardless of the NRA Marketing lies and the lies put forth by their gun-crazy minions.
“Since February 28, 1994, the Brady law has blocked more than 2.1 million gun purchases, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. That is 343 purchases blocked every day. More than one million of those attempted purchases were by felons. Another 291,000 denials were to domestic abusers. And, 118,000 gun sales to fugitives were blocked thanks to background checks
Obewon December 28th, 2014 at 11:49
Wrong again, The gun that killed both officers came from Arrowhead Pawn Shop, in Jonesboro, Ga. The gun nut used the weapon to shoot his girl friend in MD on Saturday preceding his murder spree.
As recently as 2010, Arrowhead was the leading out-of-state source of guns recovered by the New York Police Department in crimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/nyregion/tracing-the-gun-used-to-kill-2-new-york-city-police-officers.html?_r=0
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 11:51
Sarah is fact aversive….
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 11:57
You have been caught in a lie…perhaps you should think before posting such sad and erroneous talking points.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 12:06
No, he purchased in just north of Atlanta in a pawn shop.
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 14:52
No he didn’t. The pawn shop is an FFL required by federal law to perform a NICS check. The pawn shop is the last recorded sale on a Form 4473, a background check, back in 1996. (That is how the authorities know where it was last sold) He also had a prior felony committed with a stolen firearm. With his criminal record, wouldn’t it be better to ask why the POS was still walking the streets? Quit trying to absolve people of any personal responsibility for their actions. This guy was a ticking bomb, and nobody…the courts, his own family did nothing….
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 15:45
In no way was I try to absolve anyone. He clearly had a death wish along with a long criminal history. I appreciate the corrected information but dial back the accusations.
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 12:12
Sarah, again, your 3rd grade logic is embarrassing. Based on your logic, then why should we have any laws such as HWY speed limits if the ‘bad guys’ are just going to break them.
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 13:40
The “all or nothing argument” is quite the popular straw-man argument, isn’t it? That’s not what she is saying at all.
Background checks have not been shown to stop criminals. It is popular notion that is driving the current trend to demand background checks. Heck, even the cops don’t believe they work. Nothing but another bureaucratic paperwork exercise and more revenue for the government.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 13:56
Have you any data to back up your assertion that criminal background checks do not work?
Anything other than anecdotal evidence? (“cops say” doesn’t count).
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 00:19
I could show you this poll:
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/press-releases/6188461-PoliceOne-com-Releases-Survey-of-15-000-Law-Enforcement-Professionals-about-U-S-Gun-Control-Policies
Or you could just ask your local sherriff or officer on the street.
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 14:28
My2bits,the troll who hides behind a fake name. Anyway, you are now simply making things up and lying. Regardless of your lies and the NRA Marketing lies, Background checks do work.
“Since February 28, 1994, the Brady law has blocked more than 2.1 million gun purchases, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. That is 343 purchases blocked every day. More than one million of those attempted purchases were by felons. Another 291,000 denials were to domestic abusers. And, 118,000 gun sales to fugitives were blocked thanks to background checks.”
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 00:17
And those blocked purchases are….????? Seeing as someone who was busted 20 years ago with a couple ounces of marijuana can end up on the ‘denial’ list, wouldn’t you think it a good idea to understand why?
Here in Oregon, at the begging of summer the Governor instructed the Oregon State Police (OSP) to follow up every denial. In the first 2.5 months, there were 37,600 background checks ran. Of that number, about 300 were denied. About 20% were because the purchaser had data in their file close to that of a criminal. Most of the rest were either dismissed, or a quick talk, or a citation issued (slap on the wrist). In all there were 8 arrests in total (no word on actual convictions). Yes, that works out to about 0.02% of actually “stopped” criminals. I’d think there are better uses of the police time and money in stopping criminals than this.
Mark Travers December 29th, 2014 at 00:31
My2Bits, stay on topic. And, as I reported above, Background checks do work.
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 00:35
LOL. apparently “Stay on topic” for you means to just nod and agree with everything you say.
Mark Travers December 29th, 2014 at 00:38
If that makes you feel better, than go on believing it.
FrancisMcManus December 28th, 2014 at 11:39
Closing the loopholes in background check law would be a good first step.
Sam December 28th, 2014 at 11:56
I have bought several and you can walk into any gun show in Texas and many states and pay cash and walk out with any used gun you choose,
No questioned ask.
No background check,
You can then sale it for Cash to anyone if you wanted to,,
no question asked
No background check,
Unless you are a licensed dealer there is No receipt and no oversight on private sales equired
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 11:59
I live in Florida, and in most any flea market, any day of the week, guns are available for “private” sales.
Sam December 28th, 2014 at 12:11
wow, !!!
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 13:38
And if you sold it across state lines, you are breaking the law already. You are breaking the law and can go to jail..
And if you sell it to a felon, you are breaking the law and can go to jail.
And if you are buying multiple firearms to turn them around for profit (to private citizens ok to have firearms, OR prohibited persons) you are breaking the law and can go to jail.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:25
“And if you sold it across state lines, you are breaking the law already”..
Not True..
” And if you are buying multiple firearms to turn them around for profit
(to private citizens ok to have firearms, you are
breaking the law and can go to jail’..
This statement is also..
Not True.
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 00:11
Really? I live in Oregon. If I sold a gun to someone in ANY other state, I could not legally hand deliver it, and they could not come to my state and legally pick it up and take it back. If the ATF found out about it, I would be arrested and sent to jail.
Straw-purchasing, or operating a gun-business without an FFL will also earn a visit from the ATF and a trip to jail. I’d suggest looking up the laws at the ATF.
Sam December 28th, 2014 at 16:05
Thousands do it every day with no way to trace.
how many cars are sold without registering and tidal transfers to trace if needed ?
Gun shows makes it easy for honest people to buy guns no questions ask by buying used cash and carry sales.
.Gun shows loopholes also makes it easy criminals and terrorist to buy guns with no questions ask by buying used guns cash and carry sales.
Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition?
YES
!. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
2.Is a fugitive from justice;
3.Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
4.Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;
5.Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
6.Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
7.Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;
8.Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from
harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such
intimate partner; or
9.Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
10.Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.
11.A person who is under indictment or information for a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm.
Thats the laws but Gun shows loopholes makes it possible for anyone to walk in and buy and sale used guns with no questions ask,,
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 12:12
Sarah Bowles, you are using the NRA marketing talking points and you are just wrong like they are. Guns sales via private means are not covered.
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 12:57
She probably is employed by a NRA marketing group ’cause she knows that she’s left out all of private sales.
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 13:36
And so? It’s still illegal to sell to a prohibited person. It’s still illegal to sell or loan a firearm that will be used in a crime. Maybe if people focused on the illegal activities and the criminals instead of the people who DON”T want to commit crimes, the crime rate could continue to trend down even faster. Why is that so hard to understand?
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 13:49
So just those foolish enough to leave them loaded, lying around and unsecured. Over 100K people are denied each year – and that’s with the poorly scripted check. These are folks that shouldn’t own guns, unless you want some jackass leaving his loaded weapons around your kids.
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 14:19
My2Bits’, not sure why you are using a fake name to post your comments. To me, sort of a coward thing to do. Anyway, your fallacious logic of the solution is an ‘either/or’ proposition is poor. Requiring mandatory background checks for gun buyers is supported by 94% of Americans polled in the latest Gallup poll. Republicans in this poll supported mandatory background checks by 92%. Based on your logic, there should be no laws at all !
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 00:08
LOL, so first try to attack me and call me a coward, and then call my logic fallacious? Anyway…
At no point do I take the extreme stance that we should have no laws. on the other hand, I don’t think we need laws to cover every single thing we do, or support laws that place the burden on citizens and not criminals.
Mark Travers December 29th, 2014 at 00:29
My2Bits, folks who hide behind a fake name, have little credibility with me and many others. Again, your statement is fatuous … your statement above could apply to all laws. Geez.
fahvel December 28th, 2014 at 13:16
do you use your gun to prop against the door or do you sleep with it in your hand? Any maroon who thinks or says it’s for protection of their home is either delusional or just plain stupid.
raincheck December 28th, 2014 at 12:17
The main reason “gun humpers” are so afraid of background checks, is because they can’t answer no to the questions, like “are you addicted to drugs?” “have you ever been arrested for spousal abuse.. etc.
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 12:18
The Brady Bill makes everyone go through a background check when they purchases a firearm from a dealer. It goes through the FBI Database. Have you ever bought a firearm for home protection?
raincheck December 28th, 2014 at 12:19
I sure have… why do you ask?
JP2012 December 28th, 2014 at 12:20
Talk about hypocrisy, the advocate for more background checks has their profile settings at “private.” What are you afraid of? Are you a sexual predator, child pornographer?
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 12:21
No, but we have encountered vicious trolls who have stalked, and attempted to find our real identities…
raincheck December 28th, 2014 at 12:27
You mean like JP2012?
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 12:28
There are a few here who do seem rather nasty…
raincheck December 28th, 2014 at 12:26
“What are you afraid of? Are you a sexual predator, child pornographer?” Hahahaha
I guess if I was, it would have shown up on the back ground check, now wouldn’t it? I have NOTHING to fear from the authorities..
Did you have fun posting that crap? Pathetic little man
William December 28th, 2014 at 12:26
What does internet privacy have to so with purchasing a firearm? (I can’t wait for this answer)
William December 28th, 2014 at 12:31
“Are you a sexual predator,”
Funny that you mention that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/ted-nugents-jailbait-problem_b_4840060.html
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 12:44
Please, please tell me you found JP2012 arrest record.
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 12:33
Jp2012, your comments are just STUIPD. Your code words might work on a pro-NRA site but not here. Grow-up.
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 12:33
Why are you attacking this man?
raincheck December 28th, 2014 at 12:39
Are you seriously THAT stupid?
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 12:41
OK why are you attacking me? DO you always insult people who ask legitimate questions?
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 14:37
I have a question for you Sarah do you always upvote yourself?
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:22
21 comments in it’s history..
Wanna bet all of them are here, within the last 24 hours?…
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 18:02
uhuh no way Stoney ’cause I had scrolled over her avi hours ago. ;)
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 18:03
so the bets off?….;)
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 18:26
yep ;)
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 12:42
Really getting tired of your self-righteous indignation yet you say nothing of the horrible things said to Shannon, you’re some kind of gal.
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 12:49
I have no doubt. Most people hate having their blatant hypocrisy waved around in front of them.
The things said to Watts were disgusting. Unfortunately that is the nature of internet debate and anonymity. Would you care to see some of the death threats and wishes for violence to my children from Anti-Gun activists? Does that have any more bearing on the subject or lump them together as well? Or is it simply cherry picking nasty comments in order to demonize the whole?
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 13:10
Carla Akins, amen. I noticed Sarah Bowles has stated NOTHING about the awful and rude things written to Shannon at all !
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 12:47
He said something really dumb and now you are asking a dumb question, legitimate maybe, but dumb.
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 13:08
Because his code words are inflammatory and stupid. I hope I answered your question.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 12:41
You’re done.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 12:42
thank you.
Mark Morrison December 28th, 2014 at 12:47
Yet the insults from those who believe as you do remain.
Interesting. Or hypocritical. Maybe a bit of both.
raincheck December 28th, 2014 at 12:42
Must have hit a nerve
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 12:46
Maybe he was asking for a friend…
raincheck December 28th, 2014 at 16:47
;)
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:14
Why are there only 48 stars on your flag avatar?
Is this some sort of message?
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 15:30
Actually it only has 36 stars. I wonder what alternate reality he is from?
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 12:20
If only that applied to all gun sales.
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 12:30
Criminals will not go through legit means to get a gun. The guy that shot the two NYPD officers used a stolen hand gun with the serial number shaved off.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 12:31
PRIVATE gun sales go on everywhere, with no questions asked, just the right amount of cash.
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 12:32
So what. That is no different that me selling you my dresser.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 12:34
If you believe that, then you are truly deluded.
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 12:46
Believe what? I”ve purchased several firearms to include AR15’s. They are really fun to shoot too. Not so much kick back like a shot gun. I’ve had to fill out MANY FBI background check forms. It asks a lot of questions regarding your background and then it is cross checked with the FBI database.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 13:04
But not the right questions, which is why the Navy Yard shooter was able to purchase his gun.
anothertoothpick December 28th, 2014 at 13:46
AR15?
Isn’t that the same kind of weapon that the Lanza kid used on his mother? Shot her in the head.
On his way to slaughtering school kids.
William December 28th, 2014 at 12:40
Because no one ever walked into a school and killed 20 kids with a dresser.
See?
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 12:44
No but a man did walk into a school and hit a girl in the head with the claw part of a hammer. Guns are not the problem. It’s the people who decided that it will be the tool they use in their destruction. Hell buddy from sandy hook could have blown the entire school up by messing with the natural gas intake to the building if it had one.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 12:46
But was he able to kill 20 of them, in under 5 minutes?
William December 28th, 2014 at 12:52
“No but a man did walk into a school and hit a girl in the head with the claw part of a hammer”
Really? You want to go with that as your way of diverting from the fact that a person shot 20 little kids?
Seriously?
Oh do continue.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 13:03
She can’t. I didn’t mean to ban her, my hand twitched. It was an accidental banning.
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 14:32
lol
Beaugrand_RTMC December 28th, 2014 at 13:40
ONE person committing a murder does not negate the THOUSANDS of murders committed with guns. What an incredibly silly thing to say. You just weakened your argument and made yourself look stupid.
mrsgunka December 28th, 2014 at 16:54
More stupid!
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 12:45
Your dresser has the ability to commit mass killings?
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 14:41
Is it a six drawer or a ten drawer? It may need time to reload. LOL
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:43
Now that made me laugh~!..
Thank you!
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 14:50
It is truly a foolish choice of weaponry. Unless IKEA has come up with automatic drawer closings … XD
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 12:32
Sarah, which all the more proves America needs tougher gun control laws such as Washington State just passed requiring background checks on even private gun sales.
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 12:33
You can tighten the laws all day long but I’m telling you it will not matter. Not since people figured out how to 3D print weapons.
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 12:44
So you think we should do nothing? That makes no sense at all.
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 12:49
Responsible gun owners already know how to handle firearms and they also teach their children what the gun is capable of and why it is not a toy.
Mental illness played a huge role in every major shooting that happened. Probably all were on anti depressants. Have you read the side affects to those things?
anothertoothpick December 28th, 2014 at 12:55
There is no such thing as a “responsible” gun owner; there are only human guns owners. And any human can at times be responsible or irresponsible, careful or careless, calm or angry, sober or drunk.
To assume that there is such a thing as a human who is responsible 100 percent of the time is just a foolish myth.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:06
Right On~!
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 12:56
Too bad there are so many irresponsible gun owners out there. Guns are routinely left out while loaded where anyone can pick them up. These ‘accidents’ happen all the time.
Foundryman December 28th, 2014 at 13:32
Which is why they are not “accidents”…An accident is when you fall off a ladder, it’s not an accident when your 3 year old shoots your 4 year old through the head with the gun they found….
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 14:43
So I guess when a kid accidentally falls into a pool, or drinks poison from under the sink, that’s not an accident either?
OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 14:47
Get back to us when the purpose of the pool or poison is to kill many people in a very short time.
Plus, the home owner’s insurance would go up with the pool, so let’s have gun owner’s insurance and let the market sort it out.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 14:48
It’s called negligence actually. As a grown up, you are suppose to be aware of such dangers, especially ones that are considered deadly. Leaving poison under a sink would be a stupid thing to do, just like leaving a loaded weapon in reach of the same kid.
Foundryman December 28th, 2014 at 14:57
Well, actually, they would not be accidents either if the “responsible” adult were to leave them where a child can get to them.
Sort of like the open carry group who would call it an “accident” if they would drop or discharge a round and hit someone else in the oreo aisle….
The fact is, there are no gun accidents, no accidental shootings, no accidental deaths, each event is deliberate, since guns are designed to do only one thing. To use one of Wayne’s anecdotes, It’s certainly not the guns fault is it?
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 14:58
Invalid argument. Cars, pools poison all these things are very heavily regulated and as such these numbers have dramatically dropped. On second thought, you just made my point for me.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:16
High Five~!
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:15
Key words…(So I guess)…
That,s what happens when “you guess”..
William December 28th, 2014 at 12:57
“Mental illness played a huge role in every major shooting that happened. Probably all were on anti depressants. Have you read the side affects to those things”
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 13:05
It’s like debating with an anti-vaxxer.
Foundryman December 28th, 2014 at 13:28
There are no responsible gun owners as long as they go around supporting idiots to walk around endangering others with loaded guns across their backs.
It’s impossible for you or anyone to call themselves “responsible” if they are so paranoid and scared they think they have to sleep with a gun next to them.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 14:39
“Responsible gun owners already know how to handle firearms…”
Just for shits and giggles, I googled cops son shoot self and guess what popped up?
http://myfox8.com/2014/08/06/off-duty-police-officer-accidentally-shoots-himself-3-year-old-son/
and this one
http://www.wflx.com/story/13036153/nc-toddler-accidentally-shoots-himself-with-police-officers-gun
and this one
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/04/17181047-4-year-old-son-of-michigan-sheriffs-deputy-accidentally-shoots-and-kills-himself?lite
That was just the top three and they’re all officer’s weapons. Aren’t they suppose to be responsible gun owners? Just sayin’.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 12:49
You are obviously oblivious to the fact that other countries in the world with firm gun control do not have the kind of death and injury rate that the US has…it can be done.
Sarah Bowles December 28th, 2014 at 12:50
I’m not concerned about other countries. I’m concerned about what happens in my country.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 12:50
FACTS MATTER.
Obewon December 28th, 2014 at 13:02
The 34% of US households owning guns commit 2/3+ of all American homicides and suicides.
Reducing gun ownership through buybacks and background checks on all guns and ammo sold saves lives by eliminating 2/3 of Homicides and suicides: “Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59%, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65% in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
fahvel December 28th, 2014 at 14:19
yours is the kind of chauvinism that will keep the world at war forever – not only dense but you, without even knowing it, may be an evil person – “don’t care”, what a horrid attitude.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:25
“I’m not concerned about other countries”..
This comes as no surprise.
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 14:42
Eyelashviper, check out some facts: https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/photos/a.130184327167571.1073741828.123061011213236/299579676894701/?type=1&theater
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:47
Meaningless statistics are up over 1.5% this month over last months meaningless statistics.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 14:52
I just love a meme that’s made to look like something that really isn’t and then presented as fact. Now my day is complete.
William December 28th, 2014 at 15:39
Ever see this one?
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 15:46
Well, there’s your problem right there in the lower left hand corner. Fox is not a channel I watch, unless it’s a clip on The Daily Show.
Foundryman December 28th, 2014 at 15:46
I see what they did there….That must be why FoxNews is such s great place to get information…
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 01:26
Yes, it is a common occurrence on the Moms Demand and Everytown facebook page.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 09:35
I really wouldn’t know. I don’t do Facebook. Tried it, but it’s like a bog. You can get sucked down into the muck if you’re not careful.
OldLefty December 28th, 2014 at 14:50
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 15:38
FACTS??????
Some nameless facebook page with a useless graph…
sure, sure,.
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 01:23
Yes. Anyone with 30 minutes and a program called EXCEL can easily re-create the graph for themselves.
Now instead of just foo-fooing it because it doesn’t line up with a list of cherry picked countries, we could actually learn something more interesting: Culture has a bigger impact on the crime rate than the number of firearms owned in a country.
It seems my original link only shows the image. Here’s the facebook link that also shows the authors sources for the data. http://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/photos/a.130184327167571.1073741828.123061011213236/299579676894701/?type=1&theater
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 13:09
Sarah, just wrong. Your logic is fallacious and 3rd grade … it begs the question, why have any laws at all if ‘some’ folks will break them. Again, your logic is flawed.
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 16:15
And with no record of who owns what of the 300 million guns in private hands, now do you propose to determine who owned that gun in the first place? All one has to do is show up in court and say I’ve never seen that gun in my life. You can’t prove otherwise because you have no proof one ever owned it. Your court case swirls down the toilet bowl. Here is how the Washington State law works: Law Abiding Citizen A takes Law Abiding Citizen B to an FFL, pays a fee for a background check on Law Abiding Citizen B. Now, Criminal A sells a gun to Criminal B on the street, no questions asked!
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 16:32
David, your non sequitur example is embarrassing. You see no holes in your logic ? Again, let me try this again: No one is claiming that Mandatory Background checks will work 100%. No one. Your argument is specious and 3rd grade logic. We could apply your fallacious logic and then ask the question why have any laws at all. For example, based on your logic, why have speed laws because some ‘bad guys’ will speed ? Why have laws against robbing a bank because some ‘bad guys’ will do it anyway ? If you put forth your logic in a traditional Classical Logic course in College, you would receive a ‘F’ grade. Again, it’s a non sequitur you put forth and typical of the NRA minions.
btw: Background Checks on purchasing guns do work regardless of the NRA Marketing lies and the lies put forth by their gun-crazy minions.
“Since February 28, 1994, the Brady law has blocked more than 2.1 million gun purchases, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. That is 343 purchases blocked every day. More than one million of those attempted purchases were by felons. Another 291,000 denials were to domestic abusers. And, 118,000 gun sales to fugitives were blocked thanks to background checks
Obewon December 28th, 2014 at 12:49
Wrong again, The gun that killed both officers came from Arrowhead Pawn Shop, in Jonesboro, Ga. The gun nut used the weapon to shoot his girl friend in MD on Saturday preceding his murder spree.
As recently as 2010, Arrowhead was the leading out-of-state source of guns recovered by the New York Police Department in crimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/nyregion/tracing-the-gun-used-to-kill-2-new-york-city-police-officers.html?_r=0
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 12:51
Sarah is fact aversive….
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 12:57
You have been caught in a lie…perhaps you should think before posting such sad and erroneous talking points.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 13:06
No, he purchased in just north of Atlanta in a pawn shop.
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 15:52
No he didn’t. The pawn shop is an FFL required by federal law to perform a NICS check. The pawn shop is the last recorded sale on a Form 4473, a background check, back in 1996. (That is how the authorities know where it was last sold) He also had a prior felony committed with a stolen firearm. With his criminal record, wouldn’t it be better to ask why the POS was still walking the streets? Quit trying to absolve people of any personal responsibility for their actions. This guy was a ticking bomb, and nobody…the courts, his own family did nothing….
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 16:45
In no way was I try to absolve anyone. He clearly had a death wish along with a long criminal history. I appreciate the corrected information but dial back the accusations.
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 13:12
Sarah, again, your 3rd grade logic is embarrassing. Based on your logic, then why should we have any laws such as HWY speed limits if the ‘bad guys’ are just going to break them.
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 14:40
The “all or nothing argument” is quite the popular straw-man argument, isn’t it? That’s not what she is saying at all.
Background checks have not been shown to stop criminals. It is popular notion that is driving the current trend to demand background checks. Heck, even the cops don’t believe they work. Nothing but another bureaucratic paperwork exercise and more revenue for the government.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:56
Have you any data to back up your assertion that criminal background checks do not work?
Anything other than anecdotal evidence? (“cops say” doesn’t count).
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 01:19
I could show you this poll:
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/press-releases/6188461-PoliceOne-com-Releases-Survey-of-15-000-Law-Enforcement-Professionals-about-U-S-Gun-Control-Policies
Or you could just ask your local sherriff or officer on the street.
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 15:28
My2bits,the troll who hides behind a fake name. Anyway, you are now simply making things up and lying. Regardless of your lies and the NRA Marketing lies, Background checks do work.
“Since February 28, 1994, the Brady law has blocked more than 2.1 million gun purchases, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. That is 343 purchases blocked every day. More than one million of those attempted purchases were by felons. Another 291,000 denials were to domestic abusers. And, 118,000 gun sales to fugitives were blocked thanks to background checks.”
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 01:17
And those blocked purchases are….????? Seeing as someone who was busted 20 years ago with a couple ounces of marijuana can end up on the ‘denial’ list, wouldn’t you think it a good idea to understand why?
Here in Oregon, at the begging of summer the Governor instructed the Oregon State Police (OSP) to follow up every denial. In the first 2.5 months, there were 37,600 background checks ran. Of that number, about 300 were denied. About 20% were because the purchaser had data in their file close to that of a criminal. Most of the rest were either dismissed, or a quick talk, or a citation issued (slap on the wrist). In all there were 8 arrests in total (no word on actual convictions). Yes, that works out to about 0.02% of actually “stopped” criminals. I’d think there are better uses of the police time and money in stopping criminals than this.
Mark Travers December 29th, 2014 at 01:31
My2Bits, stay on topic. And, as I reported above, Background checks do work.
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 01:35
LOL. apparently “Stay on topic” for you means to just nod and agree with everything you say.
Mark Travers December 29th, 2014 at 01:38
If that makes you feel better, than go on believing it.
FrancisMcManus December 28th, 2014 at 12:39
Closing the loopholes in background check law would be a good first step.
Sam December 28th, 2014 at 12:56
I have bought several and you can walk into any gun show in Texas and many states and pay cash and walk out with any used gun you choose,
No questioned ask.
No background check,
You can then sale it for Cash to anyone if you wanted to,,
no question asked
No background check,
Unless you are a licensed dealer there is No receipt and no oversight on private sales equired
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 12:59
I live in Florida, and in most any flea market, any day of the week, guns are available for “private” sales.
Sam December 28th, 2014 at 13:11
wow, !!!
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 14:38
And if you sold it across state lines, you are breaking the law already. You are breaking the law and can go to jail..
And if you sell it to a felon, you are breaking the law and can go to jail.
And if you are buying multiple firearms to turn them around for profit (to private citizens ok to have firearms, OR prohibited persons) you are breaking the law and can go to jail.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:25
“And if you sold it across state lines, you are breaking the law already”..
Not True..
” And if you are buying multiple firearms to turn them around for profit
(to private citizens ok to have firearms, you are
breaking the law and can go to jail’..
This statement is also..
Not True.
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 01:11
Really? I live in Oregon. If I sold a gun to someone in ANY other state, I could not legally hand deliver it, and they could not come to my state and legally pick it up and take it back. If the ATF found out about it, I would be arrested and sent to jail.
Straw-purchasing, or operating a gun-business without an FFL will also earn a visit from the ATF and a trip to jail. I’d suggest looking up the laws at the ATF.
Sam December 28th, 2014 at 17:05
Thousands do it every day with no way to trace.
how many cars are sold without registering and tidal transfers to trace if needed ?
Gun shows makes it easy for honest people to buy guns no questions ask by buying used cash and carry sales.
.Gun shows loopholes also makes it easy criminals and terrorist to buy guns with no questions ask by buying used guns cash and carry sales.
Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition?
YES
!. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
2.Is a fugitive from justice;
3.Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
4.Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;
5.Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
6.Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
7.Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;
8.Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from
harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such
intimate partner; or
9.Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
10.Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.
11.A person who is under indictment or information for a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm.
Thats the laws but Gun shows loopholes makes it possible for anyone to walk in and buy and sale used guns with no questions ask,,
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 13:12
Sarah Bowles, you are using the NRA marketing talking points and you are just wrong like they are. Guns sales via private means are not covered.
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 13:57
She probably is employed by a NRA marketing group ’cause she knows that she’s left out all of private sales.
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 14:36
And so? It’s still illegal to sell to a prohibited person. It’s still illegal to sell or loan a firearm that will be used in a crime. Maybe if people focused on the illegal activities and the criminals instead of the people who DON”T want to commit crimes, the crime rate could continue to trend down even faster. Why is that so hard to understand?
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 14:49
So just those foolish enough to leave them loaded, lying around and unsecured. Over 100K people are denied each year – and that’s with the poorly scripted check. These are folks that shouldn’t own guns, unless you want some jackass leaving his loaded weapons around your kids.
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 15:19
My2Bits’, not sure why you are using a fake name to post your comments. To me, sort of a coward thing to do. Anyway, your fallacious logic of the solution is an ‘either/or’ proposition is poor. Requiring mandatory background checks for gun buyers is supported by 94% of Americans polled in the latest Gallup poll. Republicans in this poll supported mandatory background checks by 92%. Based on your logic, there should be no laws at all !
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 01:08
LOL, so first try to attack me and call me a coward, and then call my logic fallacious? Anyway…
At no point do I take the extreme stance that we should have no laws. on the other hand, I don’t think we need laws to cover every single thing we do, or support laws that place the burden on citizens and not criminals.
Mark Travers December 29th, 2014 at 01:29
My2Bits, folks who hide behind a fake name, have little credibility with me and many others. Again, your statement is fatuous … your statement above could apply to all laws. Geez.
fahvel December 28th, 2014 at 14:16
do you use your gun to prop against the door or do you sleep with it in your hand? Any maroon who thinks or says it’s for protection of their home is either delusional or just plain stupid.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 11:41
To all the trolls here attacking this woman, saying they stand for sensible rights, etc….
What have you done to make the NRA a responsible organization, what have you done to stop the insanity demonstrated by the Right To Carry dolts who love to parade through family restaurants, grocery stores, city streets, carrying automatic rifles….????????
Until you address the egregious behavior by gunbots and the gun makers…you have no credibility, here or elsewhere.
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 13:33
What has any gun-control advocate done for sensible rights, other than to propose to take them away from a group they don’t want to understand? And if you don’t even take the 5 minutes to understand the difference between an automatic rifle, and the firearms available to the citizens of this country, you’re the one with no credibility and the one trying to change something you don’t even understand.
Oh, NRA and NSSF has CONTINUED to directly do more for ‘gun safety’ then everytown or mayors against illegal guns, or Shannon Watts.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 13:44
Excuse me, where did she state take them away?
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 15:46
Isn’t that the end goal of a true gun-control advocate? That in the absence of “ban them all”, to make gun ownership so onerous, so expensive, so socially repulsive as to be a virtual ban? That the means justify the ends? Read some of eyelashvipers other comments, here and in other gun-control threads if you want to see what I mean. Or for a real eye full, visit Coalition to Stop Gun Violences facebook page.
On a side note: I personally don’t think there is a lot to gain from open carry. But at the same time, I find it very offensive to try and lump open carry people in with the same group as common criminals. I thought society did away with the whole “that person LOOKS scary, so we need to pass laws and call the police to control them” back in the 50’s and 60’s.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 16:02
No, I don’t find that to be true at all. Most of the readers here are gun owners themselves. There are those looking to ban guns – there are also those out there trying to ban birth control. Neither is going to happen. Expecting people to exhibit a reasonable proficiency and an ability to be a responsible gun owner is not an over the top expectation or goal.
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 00:04
Perhaps I’ve been spending too much time discussing with the more ‘progressive’ gun-control advocates who will say “I support the 2nd amendment, but…” and then lead into a long list of wants and demands that are all but short of a total ban of all firearms.
There are those Moms Demand members I’ve seen comment that they see this a a cultural war. That they know the Kroger boycotts over open-carry won’t stop one robbery, homicide, suicide, etc. But it does give them the opportunity to make even responsible gun-ownership appear irresponsible in order to try and sway public opinion their way.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 05:09
You will never convince me that some yahoo wandering around Kroger makes me safer. Too many irresponsible, attention seeking idiots are allowed to own firearms. There is no reason to carry a slung across your back while grocery shopping. Those that feel compelled to act in such a manner are particularly suspect.
If you wish to carry a gun off your private property you should have to be able to prove you know how to clean and keep in proper order, have the ability to secure it against use by a thief or child and display a proper degree of proficiency. Those unwilling or unable to do so, shouldn’t have one.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 16:47
You are so full of nonsense, and your first comment is a fine example. If you think that I am a “gun grabber” as you apparently see those of use who are for serious gun control, then you need meds for your delusional state. I learned to shoot a rifle when I was nine, and do not fear guns, just the zealots who cannot face life without having one attached, or close by.
But continue on, maybe you can convince someone of something with such babble.
Graham Shevlin December 28th, 2014 at 16:49
You know, the Slippery Slope fallacy doesn’t gain any credibility by constant repetition.
churchboy January 14th, 2015 at 02:40
Open carrying should be common place like it used to be. People wouldn’t be so scared of it. Personally, as a tactical advantage, I don’t want my enemy to see where or what I’m carrying, but I still open carry as an act of protest to tyrannical gun laws. To remind those pricks that people like me are still here and still dangerous if tread on. Just because a rattlesnake is sleeping doesn’t mean you should step on him. You’re still gonna get bit.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:02
“What has any gun-control advocate done for sensible rights, other than
to propose to take them away from a group they don’t want to understand?”…
Yeah mean like banning 20-30 round or more magazines?
You can still have your AK or AR with a 10 round non detachable mags.
Of course you rifle my not look as ‘cool’ with a short mag, but if you cant hit your target with 10 shots, maybe you dont need a rifle to begin with.
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 15:31
Yes, like banning 20-30 round magazines. I’ve seen the arbitrary limits go from 20 to 15 to 10 and now 7 in New York. See the trend here? And the effect on crime? zero. Remember the number one use of a gun death in the US is suicide. How would a magazine limit reduce that?
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 12:41
To all the trolls here attacking this woman, saying they stand for sensible rights, etc….
What have you done to make the NRA a responsible organization, what have you done to stop the insanity demonstrated by the Right To Carry dolts who love to parade through family restaurants, grocery stores, city streets, carrying automatic rifles….????????
Until you address the egregious behavior by gunbots and the gun makers…you have no credibility, here or elsewhere.
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 14:33
What has any gun-control advocate done for sensible rights, other than to propose to take them away from a group they don’t want to understand? And if you don’t even take the 5 minutes to understand the difference between an automatic rifle, and the firearms available to the citizens of this country, you’re the one with no credibility and the one trying to change something you don’t even understand.
Oh, NRA and NSSF has CONTINUED to directly do more for ‘gun safety’ then everytown or mayors against illegal guns, or Shannon Watts.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 14:44
Excuse me, where did she state take them away?
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 16:46
Isn’t that the end goal of a true gun-control advocate? That in the absence of “ban them all”, to make gun ownership so onerous, so expensive, so socially repulsive as to be a virtual ban? That the means justify the ends? Read some of eyelashvipers other comments, here and in other gun-control threads if you want to see what I mean. Or for a real eye full, visit Coalition to Stop Gun Violences facebook page.
On a side note: I personally don’t think there is a lot to gain from open carry. But at the same time, I find it very offensive to try and lump open carry people in with the same group as common criminals. I thought society did away with the whole “that person LOOKS scary, so we need to pass laws and call the police to control them” back in the 50’s and 60’s.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 17:02
No, I don’t find that to be true at all. Most of the readers here are gun owners themselves. There are those looking to ban guns – there are also those out there trying to ban birth control. Neither is going to happen. Expecting people to exhibit a reasonable proficiency and an ability to be a responsible gun owner is not an over the top expectation or goal.
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 01:04
Perhaps I’ve been spending too much time discussing with the more ‘progressive’ gun-control advocates who will say “I support the 2nd amendment, but…” and then lead into a long list of wants and demands that are all but short of a total ban of all firearms.
There are those Moms Demand members I’ve seen comment that they see this a a cultural war. That they know the Kroger boycotts over open-carry won’t stop one robbery, homicide, suicide, etc. But it does give them the opportunity to make even responsible gun-ownership appear irresponsible in order to try and sway public opinion their way.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 06:09
You will never convince me that some yahoo wandering around Kroger makes me safer. Too many irresponsible, attention seeking idiots are allowed to own firearms. There is no reason to carry a slung across your back while grocery shopping. Those that feel compelled to act in such a manner are particularly suspect.
If you wish to carry a gun off your private property you should have to be able to prove you know how to clean and keep in proper order, have the ability to secure it against use by a thief or child and display a proper degree of proficiency. Those unwilling or unable to do so, shouldn’t have one.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 17:47
You are so full of nonsense, and your first comment is a fine example. If you think that I am a “gun grabber” as you apparently see those of use who are for serious gun control, then you need meds for your delusional state. I learned to shoot a rifle when I was nine, and do not fear guns, just the zealots who cannot face life without having one attached, or close by.
But continue on, maybe you can convince someone of something with such babble.
Graham Shevlin December 28th, 2014 at 17:49
You know, the Slippery Slope fallacy doesn’t gain any credibility by constant repetition.
churchboy January 14th, 2015 at 03:40
Open carrying should be common place like it used to be. People wouldn’t be so scared of it. Personally, as a tactical advantage, I don’t want my enemy to see where or what I’m carrying, but I still open carry as an act of protest to tyrannical gun laws. To remind those pricks that people like me are still here and still dangerous if tread on. Just because a rattlesnake is sleeping doesn’t mean you should step on him. You’re still gonna get bit.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:02
“What has any gun-control advocate done for sensible rights, other than
to propose to take them away from a group they don’t want to understand?”…
Yeah mean like banning 20-30 round or more magazines?
You can still have your AK or AR with a 10 round non detachable mags.
Of course you rifle my not look as ‘cool’ with a short mag, but if you cant hit your target with 10 shots, maybe you dont need a rifle to begin with.
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 16:31
Yes, like banning 20-30 round magazines. I’ve seen the arbitrary limits go from 20 to 15 to 10 and now 7 in New York. See the trend here? And the effect on crime? zero. Remember the number one use of a gun death in the US is suicide. How would a magazine limit reduce that?
churchboy January 14th, 2015 at 04:00
I personally believe automatic weapons should still be legal solely because we need to have the same capabilities as the military. We are technically supposed to be the military, not the standing army that we illegally have. We also need to be able to fight on fair grounds with a standing army that’s sympathetic to our tyrannical government. Which means, at the very least, automatic weapons. I think people should be required to qualify before buying any firearm by a PRIVATE accredited instructor, separated from the government. Your skill with a gun should be your license. If you can’t hit the broadside of a barn, you’re more dangerous than beneficial to society. You should only need one bullet for your target but with the gear they’re stockpiling against people like you and I we’re gonna need RPGs. My 9mm luger rounds would barely scratch paint on an MRAP….good thing I know how to blow shit up.
sgthwjack December 28th, 2014 at 11:51
“…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
Without regard to race, gender, political labels, or any other artificial distinction, no discrimination. Live and let live, or not, your choice. Choose wisely.
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 12:13
Stay on topic please.
sgthwjack December 28th, 2014 at 12:52
Sorry to interrupt your “food fight” with the basic truth of the matter. ‘Bye
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 13:21
You did not offer any truth, just some rambling. bye
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 13:28
What does that mean exactly? “food fight”?
Anomaly 100 December 28th, 2014 at 13:38
Did someone say FOOD?
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 13:45
The Sarge over there seems to think we would just throw food about all willy nilly like! The nerve!
Anomaly 100 December 28th, 2014 at 13:59
Throw food? Don’t be silly. Ooo, I’m gonna go make a sammich. This conversation has made me hongry.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 14:04
I’m going to make some Chicken Noodle soup! Yum!
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 13:43
Sorry, I don’t read paranoid cryptic. Guess we’ll never know.
sgthwjack December 28th, 2014 at 14:00
A typically spontaneous and disorderly outbreak in which food is thrown for amusement, especially across a cafeteria room, as a form of chaotic collective behavior. Typically by juveniles, of whatever age. In this instance the “food” is verbal.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 14:03
Your sentence makes no sense then. This isn’t a spontaneous and disorderly discussion, now is it? Then you use a little ad hominem “typically by juveniles”, not really because many people have thrown food for various reasons and some even being that of a tradition like Spain. So, again … exactly what are you trying to say?
Foundryman December 28th, 2014 at 13:34
What does that mean exactly? “Choose wisely”?
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 14:00
So if I choose to keep the cake and throw the veggies, is that wise? LMAO!
William December 28th, 2014 at 14:33
It means “post stupid sh*t, then run away”
sgthwjack ✯ December 28th, 2014 at 12:51
“…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
Without regard to race, gender, political labels, or any other artificial distinction, no discrimination. Live and let live, or not, your choice. Choose wisely.
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 13:13
Stay on topic please.
sgthwjack ✯ December 28th, 2014 at 13:52
Sorry to interrupt your “food fight” with the basic truth of the matter. ‘Bye
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 14:21
You did not offer any truth, just some rambling. bye
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 14:28
What does that mean exactly? “food fight”?
Anomaly 100 December 28th, 2014 at 14:38
Did someone say FOOD?
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 14:45
The Sarge over there seems to think we would just throw food about all willy nilly like! The nerve!
Anomaly 100 December 28th, 2014 at 14:59
Throw food? Don’t be silly. Ooo, I’m gonna go make a sammich. This conversation has made me hongry.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 15:04
I’m going to make some Chicken Noodle soup! Yum!
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 14:43
Sorry, I don’t read paranoid cryptic. Guess we’ll never know.
sgthwjack ✯ December 28th, 2014 at 15:00
A typically spontaneous and disorderly outbreak in which food is thrown for amusement, especially across a cafeteria room, as a form of chaotic collective behavior. Typically by juveniles, of whatever age. In this instance the “food” is verbal.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 15:03
Your sentence makes no sense then. This isn’t a spontaneous and disorderly discussion, now is it? Then you use a little ad hominem “typically by juveniles”, not really because many people have thrown food for various reasons and some even being that of a tradition like Spain. So, again … exactly what are you trying to say?
Foundryman December 28th, 2014 at 14:34
What does that mean exactly? “Choose wisely”?
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 15:00
So if I choose to keep the cake and throw the veggies, is that wise? LMAO!
William December 28th, 2014 at 15:33
It means “post stupid sh*t, then run away”
NunyaBusiness December 28th, 2014 at 13:17
She gets upset about the NRA blocking her from their twitter feed?
REALLY?
She and her group block every single person that they don’t agree with from posting to their organizations Facebook page within a few minutes of the persons first post.
Poor baby.
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 13:19
Why do you want to post there?
NunyaBusiness December 28th, 2014 at 14:29
To try to educate the ignorant masses that follow this person, her groups, and the groups she supports.
William December 28th, 2014 at 14:32
“To try to educate the ignorant masses that follow this person”. How benevolent of you. Educating people to your way of thinking. You’re such a humanitarian.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:34
Don’t ya love the use of “ignorant masses”, whom he feels obliged to “educate”.
William December 28th, 2014 at 14:35
Well he must be right..he has (after all), FLAGS in his avatar. That unto itself makes him an expert.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:37
And an eagle….
Know who else used an eagle for symbolism?..
Starts with an N and ends whit an I..:)
Graham Shevlin December 28th, 2014 at 16:47
Here’s an idea; how about starting from the premise that people who disagree with you are actually not ignorant, they just have a different viewpoint. You might actually find the dialogue a lot more constructive.
NunyaBusiness December 28th, 2014 at 18:11
You are correct. Those that are anti-gun may not be ignorant. They may just be misinformed. I should have said “ignorant/misinformed masses”.
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 17:07
Have your tried Breitbart’s site?
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 13:24
How many of your comments did they block?
One, or more?
Or are you just whining for someone else?
NunyaBusiness December 28th, 2014 at 14:31
They delete every post that doesn’t agree with their point of view and block anyone that dares to oppose their point of view from posting again.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:32
You already said that in your previous comment..
I asked you a simple question..
One apparently you are unwilling to answer.
NunyaBusiness December 28th, 2014 at 14:38
Oh. Too complicated for you? They delete ONE post as soon as it is seen and then block you immediately. They cannot delete more than one post since you cannot make more than one post before you are banned. EVERYONE that disagrees with them is blocked.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:41
That’s a great non answer..
You reiterate you comment for the third time..
Yet fail to address my question to you.
Care to take another swing at it?
NunyaBusiness December 28th, 2014 at 14:54
Just because you seem to not comprehend written English does not mean I have not answered your question.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:57
That’s 4 times now you dodge the question I asked.
You are beginning to bore me.
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 17:39
I didn’t dodge, I posted my actual debate with Shannon Watts. I opened my first Twitter account last night only to find Shannon had somehow PRE-banned a non-existing account!
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 18:28
It’s an IP address that is banned. You logged in and obviously went to her page. Twitter blocked you. Don’t you know how these sites servers work or that your computer has an IP address so that even attempting to set up a guest profile doesn’t change your IP address? So, don’t get all freaked out.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 18:42
So she banned your account based on your ISP address…
See, making new names under new accounts, still go back to your ISP address..
You can try to hide..or you can attempt to make a new persona..
But in the end it all points back to you.( and your internet address).
Smarter people than you know how to get around that..
I’ll let those smarter people do what they do, (persistent trolling) and leave it up to you how to figure it out.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 15:06
Actually, it’s your lack of comprehension. How many comments did you post that were blocked. One or more? You have written “They delete one as soon as it is seen …” is not an answer to that particular question.
NunyaBusiness December 28th, 2014 at 15:40
Oh, my bad.
ONE POST (per anti-gun FB page).
I (and anyone else that disagrees) post ONE time and they delete and ban as soon as any mod sees it.
ONE POST (per anti-gun FB page).
Are you purposely not understanding? If ANYONE (me included) makes a single post not in agreement with their anti-gun philosophy, it is deleted and the person is banned immediately.
ONE POST.
Better?
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 15:46
It would be the actual answer to the actual question posed by Stoney. So, aside from the unnecessary Caps, and the added superfluous information added that I did not ask for, yeah it’s better.
As for purposely not understanding, that’s an assumption you’ve made without regard to your own lack of communication skills or writing skills, for that matter. He asked you a direct question, multiple times and it was your failure to understand that seemed willful. Glad I could help you understand it!
Now, isn’t that better?
David Morton December 28th, 2014 at 16:20
Yup. So what? They don’t like you so they ban you
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 16:38
Care to share your post/comment that was “banned” from Ms. Watt’s site?
Feel free to take your time…
And remember, your comment history is available on Google, Disqus, Facebook, Twitter and any other outlet you might choose to use..
Everything you post on social media, despite your best attempts, is available for anyone to see.
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 17:11
I have the one that Shannon banned me over back during the Starbucks escapade:
NunyaBusiness December 28th, 2014 at 20:09
I can’t post what got me banned because that was over 6 months ago and I do not remember exactly what I posted. I can tell you that it was nothing but facts; not rude, mean, or anything like that. Just facts.
If you think you can find my post (or ANY pro-gun post) on Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America’s FB page have a nut and try.
Tommycat December 28th, 2014 at 23:43
I actually made two posts before Everytown blocked me. Two on Moms as well. They are quick there. I was even in a nice friendly debate with another poster. Somehow even a friendly debate was too much for them.
William December 28th, 2014 at 14:49
So…..your problem is that you are not able to post an opinion on a site you don’t like that is owned by a woman you dislike.
Really?
You view her opinion as flawed, yet you are desperately and venomously trying to post things there.
Is that pretty much correct?
NunyaBusiness December 28th, 2014 at 14:52
No.
William December 28th, 2014 at 14:54
OK then please enlighten us, as to the real purpose of your noble quest.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:54
He wont even answer the question I asked..
I simply wanted to know if he was, or how many comments of his were blocked on Ms. Watts site..
Maybe he is trying to be honest buy not answering..(willing to bet he never tried to post any comment there)..
And just wants something to complain about.
William December 28th, 2014 at 14:56
He seems quite frustrated. There’s a LOT of people in the world who have blogs/sites that I disagree with. I don’t feel the need to “educate” them. I think having an all consuming desire to do so would be analogous to stalking.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:58
And that’s why I dont go to “those sites”..:)
William December 28th, 2014 at 15:01
Amazing. Um..and uh look Stoney, I’m not trying to tell you how to live, but when you’re done playing with his brain, please put it back, then wash up. You don’t know where that thing has been.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:11
I hear ya brother…
Sometimes having a little fun involves getting your hands dirty~!
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 15:17
And your point?
David Morton December 28th, 2014 at 16:18
I block gun people all the time. What I do is usually check their profile and their tweets/posts and if they are totally nuts, I block them. Most of the gun people are threatening and dangerous and they escalate and stalk others. That is why you are so easily blocked.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 13:26
Did they use abusive language? Look at the tweets, with language like that … what does one expect? Where in her tweet does she use offensive language or that’s she’s upset by being blocked? It seems more like she finds it funny they’re so afraid of her.
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 23:56
The tweets in this article? I could agree with.
But I’ve also seen plenty of “can you show me where that statistic came from?”, or something along the lines of “but the FBI statistics show that since 1993, ‘gun violence’ homicides are down 50%” also get people banned as well.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 08:38
Well, I couldn’t say. I don’t know how they run their page. I don’t use twitter or Facebook. I will check someone’s link, but I don’t use the application for myself. Like I said in the thread to someone else, Facebook is like a bog, if you aren’t careful …you can get sucked down into the muck. I prefer not to get into muck if I can actively avoid it.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 13:41
Who said she was upset?
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 13:46
Fox news maybe?
NunyaBusiness✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ December 28th, 2014 at 14:17
She gets upset about the NRA blocking her from their twitter feed?
REALLY?
She and her group block every single person that they don’t agree with from posting to their organizations Facebook page within a few minutes of the persons first post.
Poor baby.
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 14:19
Why do you want to post there?
NunyaBusiness✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ December 28th, 2014 at 15:29
To try to educate the ignorant masses that follow this person, her groups, and the groups she supports.
William December 28th, 2014 at 15:32
“To try to educate the ignorant masses that follow this person”. How benevolent of you. Educating people to your way of thinking. You’re such a humanitarian.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:34
Don’t ya love the use of “ignorant masses”, whom he feels obliged to “educate”.
William December 28th, 2014 at 15:35
Well he must be right..he has (after all), FLAGS in his avatar. That unto itself makes him an expert.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:37
And an eagle….
Know who else used an eagle for symbolism?..
Starts with an N and ends whit an I..:)
Graham Shevlin December 28th, 2014 at 17:47
Here’s an idea; how about starting from the premise that people who disagree with you are actually not ignorant, they just have a different viewpoint. You might actually find the dialogue a lot more constructive.
NunyaBusiness✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ December 28th, 2014 at 19:11
You are correct. Those that are anti-gun may not be ignorant. They may just be misinformed. I should have said “ignorant/misinformed masses”.
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 18:07
Have your tried Breitbart’s site?
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:24
How many of your comments did they block?
One, or more?
Or are you just whining for someone else?
NunyaBusiness✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ December 28th, 2014 at 15:31
They delete every post that doesn’t agree with their point of view and block anyone that dares to oppose their point of view from posting again.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:32
You already said that in your previous comment..
I asked you a simple question..
One apparently you are unwilling to answer.
NunyaBusiness✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ December 28th, 2014 at 15:38
Oh. Too complicated for you? They delete ONE post as soon as it is seen and then block you immediately. They cannot delete more than one post since you cannot make more than one post before you are banned. EVERYONE that disagrees with them is blocked.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:41
That’s a great non answer..
You reiterate you comment for the third time..
Yet fail to address my question to you.
Care to take another swing at it?
NunyaBusiness✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ December 28th, 2014 at 15:54
Just because you seem to not comprehend written English does not mean I have not answered your question.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:57
That’s 4 times now you dodge the question I asked.
You are beginning to bore me.
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 18:39
I didn’t dodge, I posted my actual debate with Shannon Watts. I opened my first Twitter account last night only to find Shannon had somehow PRE-banned a non-existing account!
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 19:28
It’s an IP address that is banned. You logged in and obviously went to her page. Twitter blocked you. Don’t you know how these sites servers work or that your computer has an IP address so that even attempting to set up a guest profile doesn’t change your IP address? So, don’t get all freaked out.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 19:42
So she banned your account based on your ISP address…
See, making new names under new accounts, still go back to your ISP address..
You can try to hide..or you can attempt to make a new persona..
But in the end it all points back to you.( and your internet address).
Smarter people than you know how to get around that..
I’ll let those smarter people do what they do, (persistent trolling) and leave it up to you how to figure it out.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 16:06
Actually, it’s your lack of comprehension. How many comments did you post that were blocked. One or more? You have written “They delete one as soon as it is seen …” is not an answer to that particular question.
NunyaBusiness✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ December 28th, 2014 at 16:40
Oh, my bad.
ONE POST (per anti-gun FB page).
I (and anyone else that disagrees) post ONE time and they delete and ban as soon as any mod sees it.
ONE POST (per anti-gun FB page).
Are you purposely not understanding? If ANYONE (me included) makes a single post not in agreement with their anti-gun philosophy, it is deleted and the person is banned immediately.
ONE POST.
Better?
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 16:46
It would be the actual answer to the actual question posed by Stoney. So, aside from the unnecessary Caps, and the added superfluous information added that I did not ask for, yeah it’s better.
As for purposely not understanding, that’s an assumption you’ve made without regard to your own lack of communication skills or writing skills, for that matter. He asked you a direct question, multiple times and it was your failure to understand that seemed willful. Glad I could help you understand it!
Now, isn’t that better?
David Morton December 28th, 2014 at 17:20
Yup. So what? They don’t like you so they ban you
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 17:38
Care to share your post/comment that was “banned” from Ms. Watt’s site?
Feel free to take your time…
And remember, your comment history is available on Google, Disqus, Facebook, Twitter and any other outlet you might choose to use..
Everything you post on social media, despite your best attempts, is available for anyone to see.
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 18:11
I have the one that Shannon banned me over back during the Starbucks escapade:
NunyaBusiness✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ December 28th, 2014 at 21:09
I can’t post what got me banned because that was over 6 months ago and I do not remember exactly what I posted. I can tell you that it was nothing but facts; not rude, mean, or anything like that. Just facts.
If you think you can find my post (or ANY pro-gun post) on Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America’s FB page have a nut and try.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 00:43
I actually made two posts before Everytown blocked me. Two on Moms as well. They are quick there. I was even in a nice friendly debate with another poster. Somehow even a friendly debate was too much for them.
William December 28th, 2014 at 15:49
So…..your problem is that you are not able to post an opinion on a site you don’t like that is owned by a woman you dislike.
Really?
You view her opinion as flawed, yet you are desperately and venomously trying to post things there.
Is that pretty much correct?
NunyaBusiness✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ December 28th, 2014 at 15:52
No.
William December 28th, 2014 at 15:54
OK then please enlighten us, as to the real purpose of your noble quest.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:54
He wont even answer the question I asked..
I simply wanted to know if he was, or how many comments of his were blocked on Ms. Watts site..
Maybe he is trying to be honest buy not answering..(willing to bet he never tried to post any comment there)..
And just wants something to complain about.
William December 28th, 2014 at 15:56
He seems quite frustrated. There’s a LOT of people in the world who have blogs/sites that I disagree with. I don’t feel the need to “educate” them. I think having an all consuming desire to do so would be analogous to stalking.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:58
And that’s why I dont go to “those sites”..:)
William December 28th, 2014 at 16:01
Amazing. Um..and uh look Stoney, I’m not trying to tell you how to live, but when you’re done playing with his brain, please put it back, then wash up. You don’t know where that thing has been.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 16:11
I hear ya brother…
Sometimes having a little fun involves getting your hands dirty~!
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 16:17
And your point?
David Morton December 28th, 2014 at 17:18
I block gun people all the time. What I do is usually check their profile and their tweets/posts and if they are totally nuts, I block them. Most of the gun people are threatening and dangerous and they escalate and stalk others. That is why you are so easily blocked.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 14:26
Did they use abusive language? Look at the tweets, with language like that … what does one expect? Where in her tweet does she use offensive language or that’s she’s upset by being blocked? It seems more like she finds it funny they’re so afraid of her.
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 00:56
The tweets in this article? I could agree with.
But I’ve also seen plenty of “can you show me where that statistic came from?”, or something along the lines of “but the FBI statistics show that since 1993, ‘gun violence’ homicides are down 50%” also get people banned as well.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 09:38
Well, I couldn’t say. I don’t know how they run their page. I don’t use twitter or Facebook. I will check someone’s link, but I don’t use the application for myself. Like I said in the thread to someone else, Facebook is like a bog, if you aren’t careful …you can get sucked down into the muck. I prefer not to get into muck if I can actively avoid it.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 14:41
Who said she was upset?
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 14:46
Fox news maybe?
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 13:50
Shannon Watts winning? What’s this say about the tens of thousands (Maybe even hundreds) of blocked pro-2nd amendment followers on her facebook and twitted pages?
I’m one of those blocked people. Why? After I saw one of their ‘statistics’ (for states with handgun background checks, 38% fewer women are shot by intimate partners) I asked where the graphs or data was because I wanted to see how that number was derived (I’m an engineer). Result? comment deleted, and I was banned in about 20 minutes.
Shannon Watts winning? Maybe this is how it worked when she was an executive PR officer promoting GMO’s at Monsanto. But not me.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 13:51
So attacking her with threats and foul names is just fine with you then? Because that’s how your comment reads.
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 15:57
But when liberals call Dana Loesch a “bible humping whore” and “hope she gets shot in the c^&t with one of her own guns..” that’s okay? This is a two way street and I can cherry pick comments too.
Graham Shevlin December 28th, 2014 at 16:44
“both sides do it” is not a response you would accept from one of your children if they misbehaved, so don’t insult our intelligence by trying it here.
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 18:47
These are not children, they are adults. I was pointing out that I could write an opposing article using nasty quotes and Tweets from the left. If that insults your intelligence, then so be it…
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 16:52
Absolutely not, and as offensive as I find Ms Loesch not a single moderator here would tolerate that kind of post. You can attack the policies or the statement made (like in the case of Liz Lauten) but the stuff sent to Shannon Watts is tolerated by no reasonable adult.
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 23:54
No, it isn’t. But neither is trying to make all gun owners look like they are of the same cloth, which is a constant theme that I see with Everytown: multiple times during their boycotts of stores over Open Carry, they have posted pictures of criminals in the middle of a robbery, and then tried to make it look as if ALL open carry people (regardless of reason) are the same type of people, and any one of them, at any moment could start shooting people.
Or how about Coalition to Stop Gun Violence? Visit the facebook page for awhile, and the posts mentioned in this article will soon look pretty tame.
churchboy January 14th, 2015 at 02:34
The number one murder weapon is a blunt object, usually a hammer. Weapons of opportunity for crimes of passion. Not guns. Guns usually stop attacks like that but they don’t show those stories. I’ve been in situations where I needed a gun and didn’t have one. I ended up leaving trails of my own blood everywhere. Never again. I can fight too, but when there’s a knife involved you will almost always get cut, black belt or not.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 13:59
” Maybe this is how it worked when she was an executive PR officer promoting GMO’s at Monsanto.”
What is that suppose to mean? Oh, right. Throw out some chum and hope someone bites? sigh. Try a better argument. Try using some reasoned words. But just by observing your throwaway comment at the end … I highly doubt you were engaging people in a tempered and reasoned way. Sorry, but that’s my take on it.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 14:07
So it’s the job at Monsanto that bothers you about Ms. Watts?..
Or is it her ability as a female with strong public relations capability that has you all wadded up?
Or are you just here to whine about having your comments blocked on a site where your opinion/comments are not welcome?
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 23:50
And it doesn’t bother you that your now accepting her word as the truth? It’s been her career to try and convince the public that she or the corporation she is representing knows best. She knows how to push her ‘products’. Why is it that she doesn’t make any public appearances, or the interviews she gives are so carefully scripted? Because she wants to control the message.
David Morton December 28th, 2014 at 16:13
The statistic is fact. Just because you feel that we should bend over backwards to educate you doesn’t make the fact untrue.
She is winning. We are winning!
Fist_of_Doom December 28th, 2014 at 17:08
You guys are not winning.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 17:11
But you guys sure are whining….
Fist_of_Doom December 30th, 2014 at 20:26
Not but when we are blocked for stating facts and blocked for it…then she whines we call a turd a turd.
whatthe46 December 30th, 2014 at 20:47
gun sense! how about the 2 y/o that shot and killed his mother? no comment?
Fist_of_Doom December 31st, 2014 at 10:03
Dumb mother. Should of not let her son get into her purse. What about these deaths: by smoking (160,000 deaths in a year), drunk driving (one to two per hour), malpractice by doctors and health care (100,000 to 200,000 and maybe more a year. What about that? Lets ban all smokers in and out of the house. Just ban all smokes period. Drunk driving…lets ban cars that go over the speed limits, hold more than four people…so there would be less deaths, and ban alcohol. Now, lets get rid of doctors and hospitals and nursing homes. No comment?
Fist_of_Doom December 31st, 2014 at 10:29
Dumb mother. She should of never let her son touch her purse. I teach my kids not to touch or handle a firearm. She should of known better. Now, that I know you only read the mass media news, here is some news that might enlighten you (all facts can be found on CDC, MADD, and search engines)
Smoking deaths: 159,000. So lets do a full out right ban on all cigarettes. Why isn’t there any “smoking sense?”
Drunk Driving Deaths: 10,000. So lets ban cars and alcohol. Why isn’t there any “alcohol sense?”
Car accident deaths: 35,000. Why are cars designed to go over the speed limit? Why are these death traps designed to hold up 8+ more people? If we limit cars to holding 2 people, deaths would go down? Why isn’t there any “car sense?”
Death by Malpractice: 100,000 to 200,00 and maybe 400,000. So lets ban Doctors, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, etc? Lets limit people visits to the doctor and hospitals. This would decrease the deaths. Firearm related deaths are not even in the top ten: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6208a8.htm Any comment? Nope.
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 00:50
A fact? Prove it.
Wait, let me save you some time. It doesn’t exist, except on a computer someplace in the files of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (source of quote). But if you do dig, you will find a graph showing the 38%, but also some more interesting info:
Like it was for only one year (2010). How do you establish a trend with only one year of data?
It excluded New York State. But the data is out there and can be found. What happens when you add it in (assuming the numbers in the graph are real)? Well, it doesn’t change much the difference between the handgun background/non-background check states. But there are WAY more non-gun homicides in New York than other states. Making the non-gun difference much larger (i.e. more intimate partner homicides committed with non-guns in states with handgun background checks).
Oh, but there’s more! The Y-axis (crimes per female citizen in this case) are per 1,000,000. The standard is to use 100,000. So why use the million mark? Because that was the only way to get a whole number to show on the graph. i.e. the actually numbers are very very small.
So not only is there no trend established and missing data, but the “38%” is akin to measuring the difference between the thickness of your shin hairs.
My2Bits December 28th, 2014 at 14:50
Shannon Watts winning? What’s this say about the tens of thousands (Maybe even hundreds) of blocked pro-2nd amendment followers on her facebook and twitted pages?
I’m one of those blocked people. Why? After I saw one of their ‘statistics’ (for states with handgun background checks, 38% fewer women are shot by intimate partners) I asked where the graphs or data was because I wanted to see how that number was derived (I’m an engineer). Result? comment deleted, and I was banned in about 20 minutes.
Shannon Watts winning? Maybe this is how it worked when she was an executive PR officer promoting GMO’s at Monsanto. But not me.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 14:51
So attacking her with threats and foul names is just fine with you then? Because that’s how your comment reads.
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 16:57
But when liberals call Dana Loesch a “bible humping whore” and “hope she gets shot in the c^&t with one of her own guns..” that’s okay? This is a two way street and I can cherry pick comments too.
Graham Shevlin December 28th, 2014 at 17:44
“both sides do it” is not a response you would accept from one of your children if they misbehaved, so don’t insult our intelligence by trying it here.
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 19:47
These are not children, they are adults. I was pointing out that I could write an opposing article using nasty quotes and Tweets from the left. If that insults your intelligence, then so be it…
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 17:52
Absolutely not, and as offensive as I find Ms Loesch not a single moderator here would tolerate that kind of post. You can attack the policies or the statement made (like in the case of Liz Lauten) but the stuff sent to Shannon Watts is tolerated by no reasonable adult.
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 00:54
No, it isn’t. But neither is trying to make all gun owners look like they are of the same cloth, which is a constant theme that I see with Everytown: multiple times during their boycotts of stores over Open Carry, they have posted pictures of criminals in the middle of a robbery, and then tried to make it look as if ALL open carry people (regardless of reason) are the same type of people, and any one of them, at any moment could start shooting people.
Or how about Coalition to Stop Gun Violence? Visit the facebook page for awhile, and the posts mentioned in this article will soon look pretty tame.
churchboy January 14th, 2015 at 03:34
The number one murder weapon is a blunt object, usually a hammer. Weapons of opportunity for crimes of passion. Not guns. Guns usually stop attacks like that but they don’t show those stories. I’ve been in situations where I needed a gun and didn’t have one. I ended up leaving trails of my own blood everywhere. Never again. I can fight too, but when there’s a knife involved you will almost always get cut, black belt or not.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 14:59
” Maybe this is how it worked when she was an executive PR officer promoting GMO’s at Monsanto.”
What is that suppose to mean? Oh, right. Throw out some chum and hope someone bites? sigh. Try a better argument. Try using some reasoned words. But just by observing your throwaway comment at the end … I highly doubt you were engaging people in a tempered and reasoned way. Sorry, but that’s my take on it.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:07
So it’s the job at Monsanto that bothers you about Ms. Watts?..
Or is it her ability as a female with strong public relations capability that has you all wadded up?
Or are you just here to whine about having your comments blocked on a site where your opinion/comments are not welcome?
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 00:50
And it doesn’t bother you that your now accepting her word as the truth? It’s been her career to try and convince the public that she or the corporation she is representing knows best. She knows how to push her ‘products’. Why is it that she doesn’t make any public appearances, or the interviews she gives are so carefully scripted? Because she wants to control the message.
David Morton December 28th, 2014 at 17:13
The statistic is fact. Just because you feel that we should bend over backwards to educate you doesn’t make the fact untrue.
She is winning. We are winning!
Fist_of_Doom December 28th, 2014 at 18:08
You guys are not winning.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 18:11
But you guys sure are whining….
Fist_of_Doom December 30th, 2014 at 21:26
Not but when we are blocked for stating facts and blocked for it…then she whines we call a turd a turd.
whatthe46 December 30th, 2014 at 21:47
gun sense! how about the 2 y/o that shot and killed his mother? no comment?
Fist_of_Doom December 31st, 2014 at 11:03
Dumb mother. Should of not let her son get into her purse. What about these deaths: by smoking (160,000 deaths in a year), drunk driving (one to two per hour), malpractice by doctors and health care (100,000 to 200,000 and maybe more a year. What about that? Lets ban all smokers in and out of the house. Just ban all smokes period. Drunk driving…lets ban cars that go over the speed limits, hold more than four people…so there would be less deaths, and ban alcohol. Now, lets get rid of doctors and hospitals and nursing homes. No comment?
Fist_of_Doom December 31st, 2014 at 11:29
Dumb mother. She should of never let her son touch her purse. I teach my kids not to touch or handle a firearm. She should of known better. Now, that I know you only read the mass media news, here is some news that might enlighten you (all facts can be found on CDC, MADD, and search engines)
Smoking deaths: 159,000. So lets do a full out right ban on all cigarettes. Why isn’t there any “smoking sense?”
Drunk Driving Deaths: 10,000. So lets ban cars and alcohol. Why isn’t there any “alcohol sense?”
Car accident deaths: 35,000. Why are cars designed to go over the speed limit? Why are these death traps designed to hold up 8+ more people? If we limit cars to holding 2 people, deaths would go down? Why isn’t there any “car sense?”
Death by Malpractice: 100,000 to 200,00 and maybe 400,000. So lets ban Doctors, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, etc? Lets limit people visits to the doctor and hospitals. This would decrease the deaths. Firearm related deaths are not even in the top ten: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6208a8.htm Any comment? Nope.
My2Bits December 29th, 2014 at 01:50
A fact? Prove it.
Wait, let me save you some time. It doesn’t exist, except on a computer someplace in the files of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (source of quote). But if you do dig, you will find a graph showing the 38%, but also some more interesting info:
Like it was for only one year (2010). How do you establish a trend with only one year of data?
It excluded New York State. But the data is out there and can be found. What happens when you add it in (assuming the numbers in the graph are real)? Well, it doesn’t change much the difference between the handgun background/non-background check states. But there are WAY more non-gun homicides in New York than other states. Making the non-gun difference much larger (i.e. more intimate partner homicides committed with non-guns in states with handgun background checks).
Oh, but there’s more! The Y-axis (crimes per female citizen in this case) are per 1,000,000. The standard is to use 100,000. So why use the million mark? Because that was the only way to get a whole number to show on the graph. i.e. the actually numbers are very very small.
So not only is there no trend established and missing data, but the “38%” is akin to measuring the difference between the thickness of your shin hairs.