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
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 14:29
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.”
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 15:25
Yes, you are right. Now research the dismal prosecution rate. Lying on a Form 4473 is a federal felony.http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden-to-nra-we-dont-have-the-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks/
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:32
The Daily Caller…(snickers).
Tucker Carlson’s web page is your source?
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 15:57
Exactly. Tucker Carlson … the guy who got the boot from CNN and other news outfits and now is a side-kick on Faux News.
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 15:35
Of course I am right on this issue … facts don’t lie. Now you are bringing up another issue, which is the prosecution rate. America needs to address that issue as well. But, the point is, that the NRA’s marketing machines LYING message that Background checks don’t work is flawed, period.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:54
Your link to the Daily caller doesn’t do any ‘research’, it list one year 2010 were there were 22 prosecutions for form 4473 violations..
I wonder what the rate of prosecution under previous DOJ administrations was prior to 2009.
Wanna do your research and bet it was even lower?
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 15:57
Hi Stoney Curtisll, I just looked at that very outdated research report that David Mette put forth. How embarrassing … same sort of crap the NRA tried in Washington State with mis-information.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:59
No need for formality…
You can just call me Stoney..;)
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 16:06
The letter points to a study conducted by Syracuse University that found
a 30 percent decline in prosecutions compared with the peak year of the
Bush presidency. In 2004, there were 11,015 prosecutions, but data
shows that by the final year of President Obama’s first term in 2012,
just 7,774 cases were prosecuted.
Read On ABC News Radio: http://abcnewsradioonline.com/politics-news/gop-blasts-obama-administration-on-enforcement-of-gun-laws.html#ixzz3NEFnYOPy
David Morton December 28th, 2014 at 16:10
You guys constantly make stuff up. I don’t even bother correcting you anymore. You aren’t worth the time…
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 17:53
And Moms Demanding Action and Every Town don’t? They listed one of the Boston bombers as a “victim”…and then tried to blame it on Slate!
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 16:27
Well..
I guess the “gun grabbing” (Obama) administration needs to get with the program..
One would think prosecuting criminal gun buying attempts would be a priority…(short of some conspiracy).
I have to ask, is the old black and white photo on your Facebook your dad?.
There is a striking resemblance if so…
My dad way also Navy WWll vet.
A navy Corpsman, (medic to the marines) battle of Leyte Gulf, Salomon islands Guadalcanal…
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 16:54
Yes, that is my father RIP. USS Hunt destroyer, Master Chief..South Pacific theater also…witnessed the Marianas Turkey Shoot. Many thanks to your father for saving lives!
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 17:06
Our pops where hero’s~!
I miss mine, he would have been 92 years old in September.
There is no arguing about that.
High five to his service~!
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 17:55
Obama is waiting for his third term before he starts grabbing everybodies guns. Good thing these gun nuts don’t know Obama is going to run for a third term yet.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 18:01
He’s not running for a third term, he’s writing an executive order and making himself Emperor. Come on!
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 18:12
Awesome, Obama, Emperor of America. He will be known for the rest of time as the one man who was able to take away all the guns and bring peace to Earth. He will be the next Messiah.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 18:34
< has third term vote ready to cast..:)
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 17:13
Try the FBI’s website ’cause at least a much more accepted site David versus dailycaller’s.
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 18:29
It falls under DOJ not FBI..and “The GOP members also ask Attorney General Eric Holder for records of DOJ
prosecutions for federal firearms violations over the past 11 years.
Read On ABC News Radio: http://abcnewsradioonline.com/politics-news/gop-blasts-obama-administration-on-enforcement-of-gun-laws.html#ixzz3NEpNdbHM
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 18:38
Again, look at the FBI’s site or at least try to David.
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 15:29
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.”
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 16:25
Yes, you are right. Now research the dismal prosecution rate. Lying on a Form 4473 is a federal felony.http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden-to-nra-we-dont-have-the-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks/
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 16:32
The Daily Caller…(snickers).
Tucker Carlson’s web page is your source?
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 16:57
Exactly. Tucker Carlson … the guy who got the boot from CNN and other news outfits and now is a side-kick on Faux News.
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 16:35
Of course I am right on this issue … facts don’t lie. Now you are bringing up another issue, which is the prosecution rate. America needs to address that issue as well. But, the point is, that the NRA’s marketing machines LYING message that Background checks don’t work is flawed, period.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 16:54
Your link to the Daily caller doesn’t do any ‘research’, it list one year 2010 were there were 22 prosecutions for form 4473 violations..
I wonder what the rate of prosecution under previous DOJ administrations was prior to 2009.
Wanna do your research and bet it was even lower?
Mark Travers December 28th, 2014 at 16:57
Hi Stoney Curtisll, I just looked at that very outdated research report that David Mette put forth. How embarrassing … same sort of crap the NRA tried in Washington State with mis-information.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 16:59
No need for formality…
You can just call me Stoney..;)
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 17:06
The letter points to a study conducted by Syracuse University that found
a 30 percent decline in prosecutions compared with the peak year of the
Bush presidency. In 2004, there were 11,015 prosecutions, but data
shows that by the final year of President Obama’s first term in 2012,
just 7,774 cases were prosecuted.
Read On ABC News Radio: http://abcnewsradioonline.com/politics-news/gop-blasts-obama-administration-on-enforcement-of-gun-laws.html#ixzz3NEFnYOPy
David Morton December 28th, 2014 at 17:10
You guys constantly make stuff up. I don’t even bother correcting you anymore. You aren’t worth the time…
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 18:53
And Moms Demanding Action and Every Town don’t? They listed one of the Boston bombers as a “victim”…and then tried to blame it on Slate!
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 17:27
Well..
I guess the “gun grabbing” (Obama) administration needs to get with the program..
One would think prosecuting criminal gun buying attempts would be a priority…(short of some conspiracy).
I have to ask, is the old black and white photo on your Facebook your dad?.
There is a striking resemblance if so…
My dad way also Navy WWll vet.
A navy Corpsman, (medic to the marines) battle of Leyte Gulf, Salomon islands Guadalcanal…
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 17:54
Yes, that is my father RIP. USS Hunt destroyer, Master Chief..South Pacific theater also…witnessed the Marianas Turkey Shoot. Many thanks to your father for saving lives!
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 18:06
Our pops where hero’s~!
I miss mine, he would have been 92 years old in September.
There is no arguing about that.
High five to his service~!
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 18:55
Obama is waiting for his third term before he starts grabbing everybodies guns. Good thing these gun nuts don’t know Obama is going to run for a third term yet.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 19:01
He’s not running for a third term, he’s writing an executive order and making himself Emperor. Come on!
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 19:12
Awesome, Obama, Emperor of America. He will be known for the rest of time as the one man who was able to take away all the guns and bring peace to Earth. He will be the next Messiah.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 19:34
< has third term vote ready to cast..:)
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 18:13
Try the FBI’s website ’cause at least a much more accepted site David versus dailycaller’s.
David Mette December 28th, 2014 at 19:29
It falls under DOJ not FBI..and “The GOP members also ask Attorney General Eric Holder for records of DOJ
prosecutions for federal firearms violations over the past 11 years.
Read On ABC News Radio: http://abcnewsradioonline.com/politics-news/gop-blasts-obama-administration-on-enforcement-of-gun-laws.html#ixzz3NEpNdbHM
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 19:38
Again, look at the FBI’s site or at least try to David.
Mike Larrazzo December 28th, 2014 at 14:51
referring to Julie Golob as an “alleged human” is perfectly ok. Nothing misogynistic about that.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:03
Mike Larrazzo has a Facebook link on his profile page..
Here are a list of his Favorites.
Bane666Au, Anti-Feminism, MGTOW – Men Going Their Own Way, Male feminists are pussies..
Mike seems to have issues with women.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 15:08
Wow. This guy has some serious issues with women.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 15:28
It does indeed seem to be so.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 15:34
I just would like to know how someone raises a kid to turn out like that? Raised to harbor hate in one’s heart is not good parenting or one really damaged kid.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 16:48
Serious issues, perhaps with reality….
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 15:17
*giggle*
ShelleysLeg December 29th, 2014 at 16:01
Like the Santa Barbara shooter whose name has already faded away.
Mike Larrazzo December 30th, 2014 at 20:58
YOU STALKER
Mike Larrazzo December 30th, 2014 at 21:03
I’m flattered that you looked into my background. Means I struck a nerve.
Mike Larrazzo December 28th, 2014 at 15:51
referring to Julie Golob as an “alleged human” is perfectly ok. Nothing misogynistic about that.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 16:03
Mike Larrazzo has a Facebook link on his profile page..
Here are a list of his Favorites.
Bane666Au, Anti-Feminism, MGTOW – Men Going Their Own Way, Male feminists are pussies..
Mike seems to have issues with women.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 16:08
Wow. This guy has some serious issues with women.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 16:28
It does indeed seem to be so.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 16:34
I just would like to know how someone raises a kid to turn out like that? Raised to harbor hate in one’s heart is not good parenting or one really damaged kid.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 17:48
Serious issues, perhaps with reality….
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 16:17
*giggle*
ShelleysLeg December 29th, 2014 at 17:01
Like the Santa Barbara shooter whose name has already faded away.
Mike Larrazzo December 30th, 2014 at 21:58
YOU STALKER
Mike Larrazzo December 30th, 2014 at 22:03
I’m flattered that you looked into my background. Means I struck a nerve.
AnthonyLook December 28th, 2014 at 15:26
Shannon Watts not only out shines any Republican female token shill out there; she’s running circles around the NRA. Smart, pretty, confident; quite inspirational.
Fist_of_Doom December 28th, 2014 at 17:07
She is not. She even has body guards who carry firearms around her. Also, she has lied about other women on a public forum and never apologized for it.
AnthonyLook December 28th, 2014 at 17:19
The Shannon Watts “Lying” campaign that you and your NRA ilk are advancing against her is such propaganda.
Fist_of_Doom December 30th, 2014 at 20:24
As a gun owner, I dislike the NRA.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 17:59
Links, or are we just supposed to take your word for all this?
Krabtastic December 28th, 2014 at 21:49
Here are 3 images about her security. Her “protection for me but not for thee” hypocrisy is well documented. Then she made the ultimate hypocrite faux pas when she tweeted that NRA nonsense after she’d blocked just about everyone in the free world. I guess the oxygen is getting pretty low in her self-made echo chamber.
This is the article where Shannon tries to tie Dana and Magpul to Newtown. These are HER words…SHE wrote the column. How is Magpul even remotely responsible? Is Coors or Ford to blame when a drunk plows down a family of five in a mini-van? I guess the GunSense crew love their cars and beer too much to call for them to be regulated more, right? Go after the guns because they don’t care about them and it makes them look like their doing something while they do nothing. They clearly only care about SOME of the children.
http://tiny.cc/zrylrx
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 04:28
So law enforcement and professionals? Those vetted, with significant psychological testing and background checks? Do you see the irony?
Krabtastic December 29th, 2014 at 10:07
Actually, no, I don’t. Their training and vetting doesn’t exclude them from making mistakes or behaving badly. In addition, not all the training and vetting in the world will create a duty to protect my family and me. I don’t have the funds to employ armed security for each of my family members 24/7 and we have no special relationship with the police department so they have no duty to protect us either. The police only have a duty to protect the public at large, not individual citizens. Their duty is to solve crimes and catch criminals. For the sake of argument, lets say they did have the duty to protect me. That duty won’t create the ability to protect me. I can’t be the only one that sees they tend to show up just in time to clean up the mess. In most cases, like Sandy hook, their job was done for them. The crime was solved in red all over that school and Lanza wasn’t on the run.
Don’t take my word for it. Check out the court cases and police articles for yourself then ask yourself why you continue to trust the govt for something they have no duty to perform and historically failed to provide:
https://bitly.com/bundles/o_2r35sfkifh/h
“Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you’re a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?”
-Jeffrey R. Snyder
Fist_of_Doom December 30th, 2014 at 20:21
Use google and you will find the proof.
ShelleysLeg December 29th, 2014 at 15:59
So does Rudy Giuliani….I’ve met him and his bodyguards.
AnthonyLook December 28th, 2014 at 16:26
Shannon Watts not only out shines any Republican female token shill out there; she’s running circles around the NRA. Smart, pretty, confident; quite inspirational.
Fist_of_Doom December 28th, 2014 at 18:07
She is not. She even has body guards who carry firearms around her. Also, she has lied about other women on a public forum and never apologized for it.
AnthonyLook December 28th, 2014 at 18:19
The Shannon Watts “Lying” campaign that you and your NRA ilk are advancing against her is such propaganda.
Fist_of_Doom December 30th, 2014 at 21:24
As a gun owner, I dislike the NRA.
Carla Akins December 28th, 2014 at 18:59
Links, or are we just supposed to take your word for all this?
Krabtastic December 28th, 2014 at 22:49
Here are 3 images about her security. Her “protection for me but not for thee” hypocrisy is well documented. Then she made the ultimate hypocrite faux pas when she tweeted that NRA nonsense after she’d blocked just about everyone in the free world. I guess the oxygen is getting pretty low in her self-made echo chamber.
This is the article where Shannon tries to tie Dana and Magpul to Newtown. These are HER words…SHE wrote the column. How is Magpul even remotely responsible? Is Coors or Ford to blame when a drunk plows down a family of five in a mini-van? I guess the GunSense crew love their cars and beer too much to call for them to be regulated more, right? Go after the guns because they don’t care about them and it makes them look like their doing something while they do nothing. They clearly only care about SOME of the children.
http://tiny.cc/zrylrx
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 05:28
So law enforcement and professionals? Those vetted, with significant psychological testing and background checks? Do you see the irony?
Krabtastic December 29th, 2014 at 11:07
Actually, no, I don’t. Their training and vetting doesn’t exclude them from making mistakes or behaving badly. In addition, not all the training and vetting in the world will create a duty to protect my family and me. I don’t have the funds to employ armed security for each of my family members 24/7 and we have no special relationship with the police department so they have no duty to protect us either. The police only have a duty to protect the public at large, not individual citizens. Their duty is to solve crimes and catch criminals. For the sake of argument, lets say they did have the duty to protect me. That duty won’t create the ability to protect me. I can’t be the only one that sees they tend to show up just in time to clean up the mess. In most cases, like Sandy hook, their job was done for them. The crime was solved in red all over that school and Lanza wasn’t on the run.
Don’t take my word for it. Check out the court cases and police articles for yourself then ask yourself why you continue to trust the govt for something they have no duty to perform and historically failed to provide:
https://bitly.com/bundles/o_2r35sfkifh/h
“Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you’re a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?”
-Jeffrey R. Snyder
Fist_of_Doom December 30th, 2014 at 21:21
Use google and you will find the proof.
ShelleysLeg December 29th, 2014 at 16:59
So does Rudy Giuliani….I’ve met him and his bodyguards.
ChiGurh18 December 28th, 2014 at 16:01
Win all she want on Twitter, gun support is at an all-time high. Got face mushed by Krogers, no federal universal check, no where in the vicinity of ever getting any type of AWB on the table, Senate taken over by pro-2A zealots, Colorado D-recalled, very little compliance in Colorado and Washington new gun control laws, more and more judges striking down gun control laws as unconstitutional; so, explain to me why I should about someone who essentially is the same as any other corporate PR manager, but with way less money and less support than the gun lobby? Bueller, Bueller, Bueller….
David Morton December 28th, 2014 at 16:08
So then why are you here frettin bout’it???
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 16:19
Isn’t it obvious. He’s here to work on his writing skills. Practice makes perfect.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 16:33
lets give him some pointers…(maybe not)…;)
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 17:14
Little hope of improvement, save your energy.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 16:14
Who says people who want some gun control are anti gun or anti Second Amendment? The Brady Bill was in effect for like ten years and all the gloom and doom warnings from the NRA back then didn’t happen. We still had guns. No one came for my Tech Nine or my H&K 223. I still bought ammo for them, shot them at the range. Hunting is big up here. We have open carry, but no one does it. It’s really kind of foolish. Most of the people I know have their CC’s.
We don’t feel the need to carry firearms while food shopping or dining out with our family and friends. Maybe you should be asking your local elected officials what they plan on doing to make your area safer? I would want that before wanting the need to openly carry a loaded firearm at my local Olive Garden, if I were to eat there. Just my opinion.
Fist_of_Doom December 28th, 2014 at 17:06
“Shall not be infringed.” What does that mean to you?
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 17:10
No rights are without limits, despite what inane thoughts whirl around in your cranium.
Tommycat December 28th, 2014 at 23:26
Actually, the right does not have limits. What you may do WITH that right is limited. As an example that is often used, free speech does not allow you to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre. They do not force you to cut your vocal cords to prevent you from doing so, but your actions with the right can be limited. Likewise we can have unlimited rights to keep and bear arms, however how we USE that right can be limited. For instance murder is not protected by the Second Amendment. That is an action that may use the arms, but the arms are not prohibited. Does that make sense?
Fist_of_Doom December 30th, 2014 at 20:25
This right is clearly stated. Privleges have limits
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 17:27
In a well regulated militia … what does that mean to you?
NunyaBusiness December 28th, 2014 at 19:38
The founders considered all able bodied males (not currently in jail) over the age of 14 to be “the militia”. Also, back then, “well regulated” meant that their equipment was in working order. So I would say that it meant every person over the age of 14 not in jail has the right to own working weapons.
Many of the cannons used by the Continental Army were privately owned.
Privately owned cannons, the most powerful land weapon of that
time, would be equal to a M1A2 Abrams or 155mm Howitzer today.
Most of our ships of war were privately owned (almost 800 privately owned ships vs the actual Navy total of 64) with commissions or Letters of Marque to operate on behalf of the Continental Congress.
A ship, such as a a privateer, would be the equivalent of a destroyer or even a battleship today.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 20:02
Here you go. It’s got some fairly good info on what was going on with the Founders and the debates surrounding the Second Amendment and militia’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22
Tommycat December 28th, 2014 at 23:22
Interesting to note that in that section you linked to, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms is NOT connected to the militia. Are you going to change your opinion on that now that the link YOU POSTED says that the right is not connected to the militia?
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 07:48
Um, if you want to interject, at least stay on point with the original conversation. What a term meant. The Second Amendment indeed states the exact words “in a well regulated militia.” Do you not know that? You can also scroll up and read the entire reference page. There were major debates as this country formed. Absolutely fascinating philosophical debates that would be the “framework” in which to build a better society.
I don’t know what you think my opinion is. I live in Maine. I’ve owned guns. Don’t have a problem with my neighbor’s AR-15. He also doesn’t feel the need to carry it around while grocery shopping. I loved my Tech Nine, my .380, and my H&K 223 (It was a very pretty) but couldn’t really shoot it. It had more kick and always jumped me. No sense in shooting a rifle you aren’t comfy shooting. As for “changing my opinion”, I don’t know what you think my position is, therefor I can not answer that. Oh, and you really, really don’t need to shout at me. I think I’ve been really polite. Thanks.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 09:11
It’s called emphasis.
I’ll say I have my doubts about you owning an H&K 223. But whatever. I’ve seen enough people who have no idea about guns claim to own them… And some actual gun owners who really have no idea about their own guns. So whatever. The H&K’s I’ve shot did not “jump” but then I’ve also had military experience firing several different firearms in the past. The FN-FAL was the one that did the jumping. Though that’s to be expected with a 7.62 NATO round as opposed to the dinky .223 CAL.
You made it a point to mention well regulated militia after a person noted “Shall not be infringed.” So therefore my comment is perfectly in line with the conversation(unless you were throwing out a red herring, then your comment had no value in the conversation). Your position appears to have been that “Shall Not Be Infringed” was connected to the militia. So, now that the section you pointed to are you going to change your response to something with a point?
As for the Open Carry demonstrators, they are openly carrying what the law allows them to carry. Texas law right now only allows open carry of rifles. They would rather carry handguns, but the law does not allow that. It’s a remnant of Jim Crow era laws, meant to keep blacks from having firearms. Once Texas has open carry, those people will disappear. Personally I don’t like open carry, but that’s my preference. Of course since I rarely carry at all who am I to decide what’s best for someone else.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 09:31
It isn’t emphasis. It’s considered yelling, really. This is emphasis. It’s common knowledge that caps is yelling. As for your doubts of my gun ownership, seems like an immediate go to the second one is confronted with someone who has no issue with gun control that actually owns guns. I weighed 90 pounds and it hurt to shoot. I’ve never shot a shotgun, they intimidate me. I stick with what I can shoot accurately. It was also heavy for me. That happens when you’re only 5’3″. I prefer handguns. I loved my tech nine. Again, you’re interjecting into a conversation and that is how the Second Amendment in written. Do you really think that they Framer’s had any intentions of disarming people or that I would be behind it? If anyone lacks a point, it’s you. You interrupted a conversation, then ask me to change my opinion and now I lack a point?
You have yourself a lovely day.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 10:53
Have you seen me use bold lettering? I haven’t put that much time in to commenting to use bold. So I emphasize with capitalizing the words. If I were yelling, IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS!!! <— note the added exclamation points for being REALLY loud.
No, I doubt your gun ownership because you stated that a .223 kicked too much. Future reference: a heavier firearm with a tiny bullet doesn't kick as much. My girlfriend loves her shotgun(and is actually a much better shot than I am) and she can handle that kick. She's 5' even and right around the same weight. She has no problems at all firing her AR which is lighter than the H&K 223(depending on the actual model since there is no model 223 there are some that are more like the FN FAL which is why I mentioned that one, though the .223 versions have next to no kick at all).
I know how the Second is written, and it does not say, "in a well regulated militia." So your initial point was a red herring designed to drive the conversation away from the "Shall not be infringed"
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 11:00
You should try reading the Second Amendment. It indeed states In a well regulated Milita. Wow. I don’t care what your girlfriend likes to shoot, really. The rounds were a .223 and I didn’t like the gun. Period. You may want to think about the caps thing, really.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 11:07
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Who needs to re-read? It does not state “in” a well regulated militia. It states, “A well regulated militia” Note: no “in” before that.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 11:15
Ok, but you just stated it wasn’t in there at all. So …again, you are injecting yourself into a conversation that wasn’t even between us. The point, which I will attempt to explain to you, is that people like to just pick the “shall not be infringed” yet ignore “well regulated militia”. And at no time did I ever say people should give up their rights to keep and bear arms. So, again, what’s your point?
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 11:19
Because the “Well Regulated Militia” clause can be left off without affecting the remainder of the sentence. It states the reasoning behind the right, but not a limitation on the right. And the SCOTUS agrees with that interpretation. When you added “in” to the beginning of that clause it changed the clause fundamentally. It goes from a reason for the right to a requirement.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 14:46
I will deny it. I bought a Tech-9 back in the 90’s, and the H&K. I did not like the H&K and my boyfriend used it. It’s a beautiful gun, but not something I enjoyed shooting. The Tech-9 nine had a little kick up and to the left, easy to counter and lighter weight. Not everyone is a fan of the H&K. That’s your evidence? BAAHAAHAAA!!! My sons father loved Bushmaster, so what? In fact, my boyfriend at the time split his nose when the recoil of his rifle popped up and the scope nailed him. Of course he was laying down while sighting it in, I’m not good with a rifle and never have been. I live in Maine dear. We don’t tend to have issues with guns.
This isn’t my page, so I can’t block you nor would I. I don’t really care if you believe me or not. I also owned a little .22. After reading that drivel you wrote, critical thinking isn’t what I would consider yourself. Really.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 14:57
Oops, “Guest” had to go away and will have to live with his doubts…
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 15:23
LOL! I don’t get that. Because I didn’t like the H&K, I didn’t own one? Wow. I actually bought the Tech-9 because I live in the woods. You don’t really have to aim if somebody comes into your bedroom at night. Just point and spray.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 15:52
Delightful little cherub had a Facebook link. He can’t imagine I would own both because it was the 90’s and he was probably still just a wiggly worm in his Dad’s sack. He’s also in the military and his page is completely filled with military weaponry. The hilarity.
XD
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 09:26
A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
Who has the right to keep and eat food in this sentence?
Can that food only be used for breakfast?
If the founders wanted only the militia to have arms, they would have stated “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Nathan S. December 28th, 2014 at 20:27
The rules of grammar, what do they mean to you? (in the context of the 2nd Amendment, not your actual comment)
Fist_of_Doom December 30th, 2014 at 20:23
A comma seperates the two. Militias are regulated. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Pistol-Packing December 28th, 2014 at 19:44
It is a personal choice of when and where you carry. At least you are given the option to exercise that decision. Here in the Great Peoples republic of New Jermany, we have no option.
As far as your comment: “We don’t feel the need to carry firearms while food shopping or dining out with our family and friends.”, hopefully that is a time that you never need it, versus having it when you do.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 20:05
I didn’t vote for the law, actually. I don’t want some untrained yahoo pulling out his gun in the middle of the grocery store and getting me and my kids shot. As for “hopefully that is a time that you never need it”? Give me a break.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 01:38
There have been people who were unprepared… He’s saying he hopes you never need it and not have it. I’m quite the same way. I hope I never ever have need of it. Honestly most gun owners I know would rather go to their graves never having needed to pull the trigger. Who really wants to kill someone? I certainly don’t. But I’d rather it be the criminal than myself or a loved one that ends up dead.
And I rarely carry. Normally when I do it’s when I’m in the woods where giving up my wallet won’t satisfy the animal in question.
ShelleysLeg December 29th, 2014 at 15:38
Yeah, like that guy who was killed by the Bundy rejects in Walmart as he attempted to pull his weapon……exactly the scenario NO one wants.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 15:40
Well, that’s my point. If someone wants to protect their home, great. If you transport receipt bags, in the car … I can see that. But going out to dinner? A movie? Everyone likes to say what they would have done, but that’s a whole lot of shoulda, would, coulda and didn’t.
ShelleysLeg December 29th, 2014 at 16:05
I don’t even carry my cell phone into restaurants since it’s ugly and distracting and can wait until I’m finished dining. The shoot out at the Golden Corral cannot end well!
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 16:07
Now that is funny!
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 16:32
That is about number 7 of the all time run on sentences I have seen in the last year…
Give me a period, or give me death~!
Pistol-Packing December 28th, 2014 at 19:41
take 3 . . . and call me in the morning
ShelleysLeg December 29th, 2014 at 15:36
She’s vying for the Hemingway opening sentence contest only she doesn’t know who he is or that he shot his head off.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 16:49
With a name like ChiGurh, we all fall down in fear of your mighty abilities, especially in the written word,………..
ChiGurh18 December 28th, 2014 at 20:07
Thank you all for the fascinating comments. Society is the best theater.
Dwayne Hinton December 28th, 2014 at 23:37
good thing there were 4 people with concealed weapons in that theater in aurora, when a mass shooter showed up.
oh wait…. not a one of them did anything.
tell me again – what use are you?
Scar December 29th, 2014 at 19:01
The theater that murderer(i refuse to give recognition to the murderer by naming them) shot up was a gun free zone, actually. Anyone who had a permit was not allowed to carry there.
ChiGurh18 December 28th, 2014 at 17:01
Win all she want on Twitter, gun support is at an all-time high. Got face mushed by Krogers, no federal universal check, no where in the vicinity of ever getting any type of AWB on the table, Senate taken over by pro-2A zealots, Colorado D-recalled, very little compliance in Colorado and Washington new gun control laws, more and more judges striking down gun control laws as unconstitutional; so, explain to me why I should about someone who essentially is the same as any other corporate PR manager, but with way less money and less support than the gun lobby? Bueller, Bueller, Bueller….
David Morton December 28th, 2014 at 17:08
So then why are you here frettin bout’it???
mea_mark December 28th, 2014 at 17:19
Isn’t it obvious. He’s here to work on his writing skills. Practice makes perfect.
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 17:33
lets give him some pointers…(maybe not)…;)
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 18:14
Little hope of improvement, save your energy.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 17:14
Who says people who want some gun control are anti gun or anti Second Amendment? The Brady Bill was in effect for like ten years and all the gloom and doom warnings from the NRA back then didn’t happen. We still had guns. No one came for my Tech Nine or my H&K 223. I still bought ammo for them, shot them at the range. Hunting is big up here. We have open carry, but no one does it. It’s really kind of foolish. Most of the people I know have their CC’s.
We don’t feel the need to carry firearms while food shopping or dining out with our family and friends. Maybe you should be asking your local elected officials what they plan on doing to make your area safer? I would want that before wanting the need to openly carry a loaded firearm at my local Olive Garden, if I were to eat there. Just my opinion.
Fist_of_Doom December 28th, 2014 at 18:06
“Shall not be infringed.” What does that mean to you?
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 18:10
No rights are without limits, despite what inane thoughts whirl around in your cranium.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 00:26
Actually, the right does not have limits. What you may do WITH that right is limited. As an example that is often used, free speech does not allow you to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre. They do not force you to cut your vocal cords to prevent you from doing so, but your actions with the right can be limited. Likewise we can have unlimited rights to keep and bear arms, however how we USE that right can be limited. For instance murder is not protected by the Second Amendment. That is an action that may use the arms, but the arms are not prohibited. Does that make sense?
Fist_of_Doom December 30th, 2014 at 21:25
This right is clearly stated. Privleges have limits
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 18:27
In a well regulated militia … what does that mean to you?
NunyaBusiness✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ December 28th, 2014 at 20:38
The founders considered all able bodied males (not currently in jail) over the age of 14 to be “the militia”. Also, back then, “well regulated” meant that their equipment was in working order. So I would say that it meant every person over the age of 14 not in jail has the right to own working weapons.
Many of the cannons used by the Continental Army were privately owned.
Privately owned cannons, the most powerful land weapon of that
time, would be equal to a M1A2 Abrams or 155mm Howitzer today.
Most of our ships of war were privately owned (almost 800 privately owned ships vs the actual Navy total of 64) with commissions or Letters of Marque to operate on behalf of the Continental Congress.
A ship, such as a a privateer, would be the equivalent of a destroyer or even a battleship today.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 21:02
Here you go. It’s got some fairly good info on what was going on with the Founders and the debates surrounding the Second Amendment and militia’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 00:22
Interesting to note that in that section you linked to, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms is NOT connected to the militia. Are you going to change your opinion on that now that the link YOU POSTED says that the right is not connected to the militia?
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 08:48
Um, if you want to interject, at least stay on point with the original conversation. What a term meant. The Second Amendment indeed states the exact words “in a well regulated militia.” Do you not know that? You can also scroll up and read the entire reference page. There were major debates as this country formed. Absolutely fascinating philosophical debates that would be the “framework” in which to build a better society.
I don’t know what you think my opinion is. I live in Maine. I’ve owned guns. Don’t have a problem with my neighbor’s AR-15. He also doesn’t feel the need to carry it around while grocery shopping. I loved my Tech Nine, my .380, and my H&K 223 (It was a very pretty) but couldn’t really shoot it. It had more kick and always jumped me. No sense in shooting a rifle you aren’t comfy shooting. As for “changing my opinion”, I don’t know what you think my position is, therefor I can not answer that. Oh, and you really, really don’t need to shout at me. I think I’ve been really polite. Thanks.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 10:11
It’s called emphasis.
I’ll say I have my doubts about you owning an H&K 223. But whatever. I’ve seen enough people who have no idea about guns claim to own them… And some actual gun owners who really have no idea about their own guns. So whatever. The H&K’s I’ve shot did not “jump” but then I’ve also had military experience firing several different firearms in the past. The FN-FAL was the one that did the jumping. Though that’s to be expected with a 7.62 NATO round as opposed to the dinky .223 CAL.
You made it a point to mention well regulated militia after a person noted “Shall not be infringed.” So therefore my comment is perfectly in line with the conversation(unless you were throwing out a red herring, then your comment had no value in the conversation). Your position appears to have been that “Shall Not Be Infringed” was connected to the militia. So, now that the section you pointed to are you going to change your response to something with a point?
As for the Open Carry demonstrators, they are openly carrying what the law allows them to carry. Texas law right now only allows open carry of rifles. They would rather carry handguns, but the law does not allow that. It’s a remnant of Jim Crow era laws, meant to keep blacks from having firearms. Once Texas has open carry, those people will disappear. Personally I don’t like open carry, but that’s my preference. Of course since I rarely carry at all who am I to decide what’s best for someone else.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 10:31
It isn’t emphasis. It’s considered yelling, really. This is emphasis. It’s common knowledge that caps is yelling. As for your doubts of my gun ownership, seems like an immediate go to the second one is confronted with someone who has no issue with gun control that actually owns guns. I weighed 90 pounds and it hurt to shoot. I’ve never shot a shotgun, they intimidate me. I stick with what I can shoot accurately. It was also heavy for me. That happens when you’re only 5’3″. I prefer handguns. I loved my tech nine. Again, you’re interjecting into a conversation and that is how the Second Amendment in written. Do you really think that they Framer’s had any intentions of disarming people or that I would be behind it? If anyone lacks a point, it’s you. You interrupted a conversation, then ask me to change my opinion and now I lack a point?
You have yourself a lovely day.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 11:53
Have you seen me use bold lettering? I haven’t put that much time in to commenting to use bold. So I emphasize with capitalizing the words. If I were yelling, IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS!!! <— note the added exclamation points for being REALLY loud.
No, I doubt your gun ownership because you stated that a .223 kicked too much. Future reference: a heavier firearm with a tiny bullet doesn't kick as much. My girlfriend loves her shotgun(and is actually a much better shot than I am) and she can handle that kick. She's 5' even and right around the same weight. She has no problems at all firing her AR which is lighter than the H&K 223(depending on the actual model since there is no model 223 there are some that are more like the FN FAL which is why I mentioned that one, though the .223 versions have next to no kick at all).
I know how the Second is written, and it does not say, "in a well regulated militia." So your initial point was a red herring designed to drive the conversation away from the "Shall not be infringed"
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 12:00
You should try reading the Second Amendment. It indeed states In a well regulated Milita. Wow. I don’t care what your girlfriend likes to shoot, really. The rounds were a .223 and I didn’t like the gun. Period. You may want to think about the caps thing, really.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 12:07
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Who needs to re-read? It does not state “in” a well regulated militia. It states, “A well regulated militia” Note: no “in” before that.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 12:15
Ok, but you just stated it wasn’t in there at all. So …again, you are injecting yourself into a conversation that wasn’t even between us. The point, which I will attempt to explain to you, is that people like to just pick the “shall not be infringed” yet ignore “well regulated militia”. And at no time did I ever say people should give up their rights to keep and bear arms. So, again, what’s your point?
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 12:19
Because the “Well Regulated Militia” clause can be left off without affecting the remainder of the sentence. It states the reasoning behind the right, but not a limitation on the right. And the SCOTUS agrees with that interpretation. When you added “in” to the beginning of that clause it changed the clause fundamentally. It goes from a reason for the right to a requirement.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 15:46
I will deny it. I bought a Tech-9 back in the 90’s, and the H&K. I did not like the H&K and my boyfriend used it. It’s a beautiful gun, but not something I enjoyed shooting. The Tech-9 nine had a little kick up and to the left, easy to counter and lighter weight. Not everyone is a fan of the H&K. That’s your evidence? BAAHAAHAAA!!! My sons father loved Bushmaster, so what? In fact, my boyfriend at the time split his nose when the recoil of his rifle popped up and the scope nailed him. Of course he was laying down while sighting it in, I’m not good with a rifle and never have been. I live in Maine dear. We don’t tend to have issues with guns.
This isn’t my page, so I can’t block you nor would I. I don’t really care if you believe me or not. I also owned a little .22. After reading that drivel you wrote, critical thinking isn’t what I would consider yourself. Really.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 15:57
Oops, “Guest” had to go away and will have to live with his doubts…
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 16:23
LOL! I don’t get that. Because I didn’t like the H&K, I didn’t own one? Wow. I actually bought the Tech-9 because I live in the woods. You don’t really have to aim if somebody comes into your bedroom at night. Just point and spray.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 16:52
Delightful little cherub had a Facebook link. He can’t imagine I would own both because it was the 90’s and he was probably still just a wiggly worm in his Dad’s sack. He’s also in the military and his page is completely filled with military weaponry. The hilarity.
XD
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 10:26
A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
Who has the right to keep and eat food in this sentence?
Can that food only be used for breakfast?
If the founders wanted only the militia to have arms, they would have stated “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Nathan S. December 28th, 2014 at 21:27
The rules of grammar, what do they mean to you? (in the context of the 2nd Amendment, not your actual comment)
Fist_of_Doom December 30th, 2014 at 21:23
A comma seperates the two. Militias are regulated. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Pistol-Packing December 28th, 2014 at 20:44
It is a personal choice of when and where you carry. At least you are given the option to exercise that decision. Here in the Great Peoples republic of New Jermany, we have no option.
As far as your comment: “We don’t feel the need to carry firearms while food shopping or dining out with our family and friends.”, hopefully that is a time that you never need it, versus having it when you do.
Mainah December 28th, 2014 at 21:05
I didn’t vote for the law, actually. I don’t want some untrained yahoo pulling out his gun in the middle of the grocery store and getting me and my kids shot. As for “hopefully that is a time that you never need it”? Give me a break.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 02:38
There have been people who were unprepared… He’s saying he hopes you never need it and not have it. I’m quite the same way. I hope I never ever have need of it. Honestly most gun owners I know would rather go to their graves never having needed to pull the trigger. Who really wants to kill someone? I certainly don’t. But I’d rather it be the criminal than myself or a loved one that ends up dead.
And I rarely carry. Normally when I do it’s when I’m in the woods where giving up my wallet won’t satisfy the animal in question.
ShelleysLeg December 29th, 2014 at 16:38
Yeah, like that guy who was killed by the Bundy rejects in Walmart as he attempted to pull his weapon……exactly the scenario NO one wants.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 16:40
Well, that’s my point. If someone wants to protect their home, great. If you transport receipt bags, in the car … I can see that. But going out to dinner? A movie? Everyone likes to say what they would have done, but that’s a whole lot of shoulda, would, coulda and didn’t.
ShelleysLeg December 29th, 2014 at 17:05
I don’t even carry my cell phone into restaurants since it’s ugly and distracting and can wait until I’m finished dining. The shoot out at the Golden Corral cannot end well!
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 17:07
Now that is funny!
StoneyCurtisll December 28th, 2014 at 17:32
That is about number 7 of the all time run on sentences I have seen in the last year…
Give me a period, or give me death~!
Pistol-Packing December 28th, 2014 at 20:41
take 3 . . . and call me in the morning
ShelleysLeg December 29th, 2014 at 16:36
She’s vying for the Hemingway opening sentence contest only she doesn’t know who he is or that he shot his head off.
eyelashviper December 28th, 2014 at 17:49
With a name like ChiGurh, we all fall down in fear of your mighty abilities, especially in the written word,………..
ChiGurh18 December 28th, 2014 at 21:07
Thank you all for the fascinating comments. Society is the best theater.
Dwayne Hinton December 29th, 2014 at 00:37
good thing there were 4 people with concealed weapons in that theater in aurora, when a mass shooter showed up.
oh wait…. not a one of them did anything.
tell me again – what use are you?
Scar December 29th, 2014 at 20:01
The theater that murderer(i refuse to give recognition to the murderer by naming them) shot up was a gun free zone, actually. Anyone who had a permit was not allowed to carry there.
Fist_of_Doom December 28th, 2014 at 17:05
And I am blocked by her. See is a fraud and a fake. Also, there is nothing beautiful about her.
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 17:14
Try Breitbart’s site.
jdenitto1966 December 29th, 2014 at 01:58
I worked with a doctor who treated people with neurological disorders. One of the signs is the unaligned facial features, especially around the eyes. This woman, from her photo, clearly has this. For what its worth.
ShelleysLeg December 29th, 2014 at 15:35
Are you talking about Michelle Bachmann or the Quitta from Wasilla? Talk about unaligned!
William December 29th, 2014 at 17:22
” clearly has this. For what its worth”
It’s worth precisely what a long distance diagnosis from a non Physician scrutinizing a photograph is worth.
BTW, based upon your avatar, I think you have dysentery.
Fist_of_Doom December 28th, 2014 at 18:05
And I am blocked by her. See is a fraud and a fake. Also, there is nothing beautiful about her.
allison1050 December 28th, 2014 at 18:14
Try Breitbart’s site.
jdenitto1966 December 29th, 2014 at 02:58
I worked with a doctor who treated people with neurological disorders. One of the signs is the unaligned facial features, especially around the eyes. This woman, from her photo, clearly has this. For what its worth.
ShelleysLeg December 29th, 2014 at 16:35
Are you talking about Michelle Bachmann or the Quitta from Wasilla? Talk about unaligned!
William December 29th, 2014 at 18:22
” clearly has this. For what its worth”
It’s worth precisely what a long distance diagnosis from a non Physician scrutinizing a photograph is worth.
BTW, based upon your avatar, I think you have dysentery.
Bob Smiton December 28th, 2014 at 18:06
From the article:
“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.”
Maybe you failed to realize this but that was a woman who made that comment and many of the other comments using those words were also woman so while I don’t agree with cussing someone out to get your point across, you may want to actually read into things a bit more before disparaging all NRA supporters for the actions of a few people who may or may not be NRA members and may or may not be women.
Dwayne Hinton December 28th, 2014 at 23:36
the NRA are nothing but gun-maker-lobbyists, and that’s all the big wigs there have been for a long time.
what kind of person supports those greed-demons?
Bob Smiton December 29th, 2014 at 00:04
That is your “opinion” though not one based in fact. I prefer to stick to the facts so if you are interested in a conversation that actually extends beyond your own personal beliefs then I am open for further discussion.
allison1050 December 29th, 2014 at 05:30
Don’t you know how to check a corporation’s porfolio?
Bob Smiton December 29th, 2014 at 13:25
The question is do you? The NRA is supported by some 5+ million members. What you are referring to is likely what they call the Institute for Legislative Action and the Political Victory Fund which are entirely separate organizations.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 01:23
Actually, if they were really for the gun manufacturers lobby, they would be pushing support for Universal Background Checks. Because as it is the gun manufacturers lose money to the second hand sales. UBC’s would drive more people to buy at the store, and increase new firearm sales.
Besides, that group already HAS their own lobby group. The NSSF…
Nathan S. December 29th, 2014 at 02:25
“Because as it is the gun manufacturers lose money to the second hand sales.”
It is hard to see the forest for the trees when one believes in the bogeyman that is the NRA.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 04:24
Yet, the current background checks deny approximately 1115K sales each year.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 09:19
Numbers are closer to 90k per year, and most of those are due to people with similar names. That’s why there are so few prosecutions on it. It is a felony for a prohibited person to attempt to purchase a firearm. Tell me: if out of those million, only 50 or so are prosecuted, what did they stop? Usually it’s some paperwork error that caused people to be denied.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 04:23
Nowhere in that statement does it state it came from a man, that was your assumption or is it just your lack of comprehension skills. It stands as a valid statement – if NRA supporters (no gender assigned) want to appear more female friendly…… If you don’t want to be lumped in with these offensive people, perhaps you should decry their behavior to them instead of worrying about parsing the wording of this article.
Nathan S. December 29th, 2014 at 04:35
“If you don’t want to be lumped in with these offensive people,”
Perhaps I missed your ‘decrying’ of another mod’s offensive language. There are a lot of comments here
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 05:01
Another mod on this site called someone a cunt, bitch or threatened to kill them? Where?
Nathan S. December 29th, 2014 at 05:17
“..Comprehension, it’s a thing.”
I said “another mod’s offensive language”, not that another mod called anyone anything.
I doubt you are so blind as to not see abusive language, you have called out people on both sides for abusive language. I imagine that can be a complete grind and frustrating to no end. But to not see another mod’s? It is featured, front and center, so to speak.
allison1050 December 29th, 2014 at 05:27
You still didn’t answer the question that was asked of you, why didn’t you just answer?
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 06:15
You mean Anomaly’s note to the readers? The author of this piece? Please, it in no way rises to the level of offensive except the very thin skinned. When you see someone on this site threaten use language like that used to address Ms Watts – you’ll have a complaint.,
CatInCT December 29th, 2014 at 06:51
I’ve been called far worse by the gun grabbers. I have had Ms. Watts supporters wish death upon me. All for standing up for my own freedom to exercise a Constitutional right. As far as the NRA, as an organization, is concerned, I don’t think they have ever claimed to want “discussion” with gun control pushers. On the other hand, gun control pushers repeatedly claim that they are not pushing gun cintrol and want “discussion”. However, they do not allow any discussion. Gun rights people who make any attempt at discussion, no matter how polite, are immediately blocked on FB or Twitter. At least Twitter has free speech, so that someone may publicly call them out on their hypocrisy and lies.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 06:52
Pics or it didn’t happen.
Bob Smiton December 29th, 2014 at 13:30
It is absolutely insinuated and the fact remains that most of those comments were made by women from what I read and I am sorry but I’ll not stand in the way of one woman calling another woman any of those names. In addition to that, those are not all NRA supporters. They are gun owners, some are NRA members and others are not but you go right ahead and make assumptions. It had absolutely nothing to do with the NRA other than Mrs Shannon Watts herself sticking their name into the mix to stir up yet more hate like she has proven to be ever so good at.
Bob Smiton December 28th, 2014 at 19:06
From the article:
“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.”
Maybe you failed to realize this but that was a woman who made that comment and many of the other comments using those words were also woman so while I don’t agree with cussing someone out to get your point across, you may want to actually read into things a bit more before disparaging all NRA supporters for the actions of a few people who may or may not be NRA members and may or may not be women.
Dwayne Hinton December 29th, 2014 at 00:36
the NRA are nothing but gun-maker-lobbyists, and that’s all the big wigs there have been for a long time.
what kind of person supports those greed-demons?
Bob Smiton December 29th, 2014 at 01:04
That is your “opinion” though not one based in fact. I prefer to stick to the facts so if you are interested in a conversation that actually extends beyond your own personal beliefs then I am open for further discussion.
allison1050 December 29th, 2014 at 06:30
Don’t you know how to check a corporation’s porfolio?
Bob Smiton December 29th, 2014 at 14:25
The question is do you? The NRA is supported by some 5+ million members. What you are referring to is likely what they call the Institute for Legislative Action and the Political Victory Fund which are entirely separate organizations.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 02:23
Actually, if they were really for the gun manufacturers lobby, they would be pushing support for Universal Background Checks. Because as it is the gun manufacturers lose money to the second hand sales. UBC’s would drive more people to buy at the store, and increase new firearm sales.
Besides, that group already HAS their own lobby group. The NSSF…
Nathan S. December 29th, 2014 at 03:25
“Because as it is the gun manufacturers lose money to the second hand sales.”
It is hard to see the forest for the trees when one believes in the bogeyman that is the NRA.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 05:24
Yet, the current background checks deny approximately 1115K sales each year.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 10:19
Numbers are closer to 90k per year, and most of those are due to people with similar names. That’s why there are so few prosecutions on it. It is a felony for a prohibited person to attempt to purchase a firearm. Tell me: if out of those million, only 50 or so are prosecuted, what did they stop? Usually it’s some paperwork error that caused people to be denied.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 05:23
Nowhere in that statement does it state it came from a man, that was your assumption or is it just your lack of comprehension skills. It stands as a valid statement – if NRA supporters (no gender assigned) want to appear more female friendly…… If you don’t want to be lumped in with these offensive people, perhaps you should decry their behavior to them instead of worrying about parsing the wording of this article.
Nathan S. December 29th, 2014 at 05:35
“If you don’t want to be lumped in with these offensive people,”
Perhaps I missed your ‘decrying’ of another mod’s offensive language. There are a lot of comments here
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 06:01
Another mod on this site called someone a cunt, bitch or threatened to kill them? Where?
Nathan S. December 29th, 2014 at 06:17
“..Comprehension, it’s a thing.”
I said “another mod’s offensive language”, not that another mod called anyone anything.
I doubt you are so blind as to not see abusive language, you have called out people on both sides for abusive language. I imagine that can be a complete grind and frustrating to no end. But to not see another mod’s? It is featured, front and center, so to speak.
allison1050 December 29th, 2014 at 06:27
You still didn’t answer the question that was asked of you, why didn’t you just answer?
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 07:15
You mean Anomaly’s note to the readers? The author of this piece? Please, it in no way rises to the level of offensive except the very thin skinned. When you see someone on this site threaten use language like that used to address Ms Watts – you’ll have a complaint.,
CatInCT December 29th, 2014 at 07:51
I’ve been called far worse by the gun grabbers. I have had Ms. Watts supporters wish death upon me. All for standing up for my own freedom to exercise a Constitutional right. As far as the NRA, as an organization, is concerned, I don’t think they have ever claimed to want “discussion” with gun control pushers. On the other hand, gun control pushers repeatedly claim that they are not pushing gun cintrol and want “discussion”. However, they do not allow any discussion. Gun rights people who make any attempt at discussion, no matter how polite, are immediately blocked on FB or Twitter. At least Twitter has free speech, so that someone may publicly call them out on their hypocrisy and lies.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 07:52
Pics or it didn’t happen.
Bob Smiton December 29th, 2014 at 14:30
It is absolutely insinuated and the fact remains that most of those comments were made by women from what I read and I am sorry but I’ll not stand in the way of one woman calling another woman any of those names. In addition to that, those are not all NRA supporters. They are gun owners, some are NRA members and others are not but you go right ahead and make assumptions. It had absolutely nothing to do with the NRA other than Mrs Shannon Watts herself sticking their name into the mix to stir up yet more hate like she has proven to be ever so good at.
Tommycat December 28th, 2014 at 19:15
Interestingly enough, even though I used no vile names nor personal insults, simply asking a few questions got me banned from their Facebook page within minutes. I wouldn’t doubt that one of her admins blocked the NRA when they posted on her page.
Nathan S. December 28th, 2014 at 20:25
It would appear that MDA and Ms. Watts/Troughton consider merely asking a question as attacking and bullying. I was blocked for merely asking a question, no innuendo, names or anything of that nature was included.
I can certainly understand blocking anyone who calls names or is abusive in any way, but it really should make people stop to think when merely asking questions get someone blocked.
anigma December 29th, 2014 at 09:19
I was blocked for posting facts that disagree with their made up statistics..
Tommycat December 28th, 2014 at 20:15
Interestingly enough, even though I used no vile names nor personal insults, simply asking a few questions got me banned from their Facebook page within minutes. I wouldn’t doubt that one of her admins blocked the NRA when they posted on her page.
Nathan S. December 28th, 2014 at 21:25
It would appear that MDA and Ms. Watts/Troughton consider merely asking a question as attacking and bullying. I was blocked for merely asking a question, no innuendo, names or anything of that nature was included.
I can certainly understand blocking anyone who calls names or is abusive in any way, but it really should make people stop to think when merely asking questions get someone blocked.
anigma December 29th, 2014 at 10:19
I was blocked for posting facts that disagree with their made up statistics..
Jeffry Bankston December 28th, 2014 at 21:18
Unwilling to have a discussion I’m sure these stupid sheep liberals will ban me also, liberals think taking guns from law abiding good people is a good thing. well only some one who wants America to fail would disarm its citizens. And here is whats Funny you will never ever ever succeed EVER
Dwayne Hinton December 28th, 2014 at 23:35
name one mass shooter, who WASN’T a law abiding citizen, prior to going on a shooting spree.
then, name ALL the mass shooters who WERE law abiding citizens, prior to going on a shooting spree.
your argument fails.
oh.. and clinton didn’t take anyone’s guns.
obama hasn’t taken anyone’s guns.
but, apparently, you weren’t intelligent to notice when W DID take people’s guns.
what did you do when that happened? posted some QQ? did you even NOTICE when it happened????
you fail at protecting people’s guns as well.
are you this much of a failure at EVERYTHING?
Tommycat December 28th, 2014 at 23:54
Actually, many of us DID find that distasteful, and made comment on that. In fact we still bring up the government seizing weapons during Katrina as an example of WHY we dislike being forced to register. Unlike some, we actually don’t like people who abuse the rights of the people whether they have a D or an R behind their name.
Outlaw Josey Wales December 29th, 2014 at 10:21
“name one mass shooter, who WASN’T a law abiding citizen, prior to going on a shooting spree”
That’s actually easy….ALL OF THEM. All mass shooters from the last decade were NOT law abiding citizens. It has been shown that they were ALL on some form of anti-psychotic or anti-depressant. That means that they have mental health issues and should not have had any firearms. . The fact that they did have firearms makes them criminals and their family members as well for providing easy access to firearms to a mentally disturbed individual
“then, name ALL the mass shooters who WERE law abiding citizens, prior to going on a shooting spree”
Again, easy. NONE. See above response.
But is has been shown that most of the recent mass shooters were either registered liberal Democrats themselves or came from a liberal Democrat home.
ShelleysLeg December 29th, 2014 at 15:32
LOL….sure Taffy, sure……we all believe they were ‘registered’ Democrats.
You have the Google, why don’t you use it…that strawman argument is so weak, it’s already been debunked numerous times.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 11:45
Don’t take my word for it though, look at the articles they posted
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/05/robert-farago/national-guard-staff-sgt-joshua-may-chronicles-katrina-gun-grab-mutiny/
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 04:16
Because after your comment and name calling why would we want you to stay? Really, you’re an adult?
Jeffry Bankston January 23rd, 2015 at 00:11
Oh like you people never engage in name calling in fact the name calling is what I was referencing to. Name calling back is what gun owners are expected to do. The threat to ban is comical Anomaly 100
is a super good human to say things like gunhumper and trolls must have a PHD
Carla Akins January 23rd, 2015 at 06:32
How nice that you agree.
Jeffry Bankston December 28th, 2014 at 22:18
Unwilling to have a discussion I’m sure these stupid sheep liberals will ban me also, liberals think taking guns from law abiding good people is a good thing. well only some one who wants America to fail would disarm its citizens. And here is whats Funny you will never ever ever succeed EVER
Dwayne Hinton December 29th, 2014 at 00:35
name one mass shooter, who WASN’T a law abiding citizen, prior to going on a shooting spree.
then, name ALL the mass shooters who WERE law abiding citizens, prior to going on a shooting spree.
your argument fails.
oh.. and clinton didn’t take anyone’s guns.
obama hasn’t taken anyone’s guns.
but, apparently, you weren’t intelligent to notice when W DID take people’s guns.
what did you do when that happened? posted some QQ? did you even NOTICE when it happened????
you fail at protecting people’s guns as well.
are you this much of a failure at EVERYTHING?
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 00:54
Actually, many of us DID find that distasteful, and made comment on that. In fact we still bring up the government seizing weapons during Katrina as an example of WHY we dislike being forced to register. Unlike some, we actually don’t like people who abuse the rights of the people whether they have a D or an R behind their name.
Outlaw Josey Wales December 29th, 2014 at 11:21
“name one mass shooter, who WASN’T a law abiding citizen, prior to going on a shooting spree”
That’s actually easy….ALL OF THEM. All mass shooters from the last decade were NOT law abiding citizens. It has been shown that they were ALL on some form of anti-psychotic or anti-depressant. That means that they have mental health issues and should not have had any firearms. . The fact that they did have firearms makes them criminals and their family members as well for providing easy access to firearms to a mentally disturbed individual
“then, name ALL the mass shooters who WERE law abiding citizens, prior to going on a shooting spree”
Again, easy. NONE. See above response.
But is has been shown that most of the recent mass shooters were either registered liberal Democrats themselves or came from a liberal Democrat home.
ShelleysLeg December 29th, 2014 at 16:32
LOL….sure Taffy, sure……we all believe they were ‘registered’ Democrats.
You have the Google, why don’t you use it…that strawman argument is so weak, it’s already been debunked numerous times.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 12:45
Don’t take my word for it though, look at the articles they posted
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/05/robert-farago/national-guard-staff-sgt-joshua-may-chronicles-katrina-gun-grab-mutiny/
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 05:16
Because after your comment and name calling why would we want you to stay? Really, you’re an adult?
Jeffry Bankston January 23rd, 2015 at 01:11
Oh like you people never engage in name calling in fact the name calling is what I was referencing to. Name calling back is what gun owners are expected to do. The threat to ban is comical Anomaly 100
is a super good human to say things like gunhumper and trolls must have a PHD
Carla Akins January 23rd, 2015 at 07:32
How nice that you agree.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 00:13
Also, way to foster positive communication by calling it a “Gun Humper” facebook page.
Nathan S. December 29th, 2014 at 00:16
I think the ‘Fostering Positive Communication’ ship sailed long ago when the first honest question was deleted and the person asking was banned and blocked.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 00:29
Actually I was making note of the ADMIN of THIS PAGE talking about keeping the comments clean…
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 01:13
Also, way to foster positive communication by calling it a “Gun Humper” facebook page.
Nathan S. December 29th, 2014 at 01:16
I think the ‘Fostering Positive Communication’ ship sailed long ago when the first honest question was deleted and the person asking was banned and blocked.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 01:29
Actually I was making note of the ADMIN of THIS PAGE talking about keeping the comments clean…
CatInCT December 29th, 2014 at 06:38
OMG! Which is funnier Shannon “I block all conflicting opinions” Watts complaining about being blocked ot all of you supporters who have continually referred to law abiding gun owners as “gun hampers”, “ammosexuals” and your endless male genitalia references, complaining about vulgar and vicious attacks! It might be worth noting that millions of good, decent people are villified every day by you and Ms. Watts for no reason whatsoever, except YOU don’t like our lifestyle.Someone as vile and ignorant as Ms. Watts, should stay at home, be a mom and stop attacking other people’s rights. Her despicable supporters verbally abuse others and wish DEATH upon them every single day. Your hypocrisy is priceless.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 06:51
It has nothing to do with “lifestyle” and if you think that everyone should be a gun owner, not only are you wrong but a danger to the general public. Asking for reasonable regulations on ownership is not onerous, it is clearly necessary to keep guns out of the hands of toddlers and the mentally ill.
anigma December 29th, 2014 at 09:17
I don`t need a regulation to keep a firearm away from children, common sense is all that is required. My grandchildren are comfortable around firearms, they NEVER touch one without an adults permission and supervision, that includes their own air rifles. Fear induced by people afraid of their own shadows, creates a curiosity in children which more often than not creates an unhappy incident. Education reduces that risk, fear increases it and ignorance increases it more so. Sure we can be more like the European countries, ban guns, ban knives, ban baseball bats, and the criminals will still find ways to commit crimes and kill those they choose. Or we could educate ourselves and our children. We were given brains for a reason, time to start using them.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 10:06
I am happy that you’re a responsible gun owner, but we both know that is too often not the case.
k0diak314 December 29th, 2014 at 11:02
A considerable amount of us are “responsible” but you only hear about the ones who arent. You cant physically force people to store their firearms safely without adequate enforcement. The street level thug who keeps his stolen .357 in his sock drawer is not my responsibility.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 11:47
You’re right, I am not worried about responsible gun owners and all the responsible gun owners I know are fine with reasonable regulation and accountability. I am not speaking of criminals in this case, just the stupid.
k0diak314 December 29th, 2014 at 11:56
So we should be held responsible for the stupidity of others? The best I can do is ensure whatever I own is secured…What my neighbors do is their own business.
Scar December 29th, 2014 at 18:52
Not many, if ANY, in the “lifestyle” want criminals or mentally ill people owning firearms. I’m in favor of better enforcing the laws we have now than adding new ones. Often the gun charges in a robbery/assault are plea bargained out, if they got rid of that, and tacked on the mandatory sentence of criminal firearm use, that might change things around. Violence cannot be regulated, it’s human nature, whether we like it or not. No amount of laws, regulations, weapon bans, etc can get rid of it.
I had a discussion with a nurse at my chiropractor’s office the other day when the doctor and I were discussing our latest purchases; I had just gotten my CCW license and a gun and holster at the time.
She said her boyfriend used to own guns, but she made him get rid of them because she wasn’t comfortable around them. Which is fine, but I’d rather he’d taken her to a beginner’s class, like I did with my mother, and get her familiar with them. Spouses/significant others/family members can sometimes make horrible teachers, and that’s why I chose to take my mom to a class(I didn’t grow up around guns like a lot of others have) rather than me try to teach her.
Then the nurse got to talking about how he’d like to get a gun again. I forget what she said he wanted to get, but the way she was talking, it sounded like he was more looking to play Rambo than anything else. I told her, that as much as I am for law abiding people owning guns, if he wants to play Rambo, get an airsoft rifle/pistol, and leave the real ones to those of us who know what we’re doing.
Common sense tells me that, despite putting the gun away unloaded, I still pull the magazine, if it has one in it, rack the bolt/slide a couple times to make sure it’s still unloaded, then put it in my bag to go to the range. Common sense tells me to do the same thing if I’m showing, or letting someone else handle my firearms. Common sense tells me that if I had children, I’d have bought a safe before I bought any firearms. Lumping responsible gun owners with mass murders and gang bangers is not common sense.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 19:10
Rule 1) ALWAYS treat a firearm as if it’s loaded
So many people are shot by firearms that “I didn’t think it was loaded.”
And I’ll be the first to disagree with you. I am of the opinion that if they cannot be trusted with a firearm, they should not be in public without supervision. I think the issue we have is recidivism and part of that can be tied to a person being limited in his prospects after a conviction. Even a minor conviction can have drastic effects on a person’s job prospects. I think the way our prisons are run also has a lot to do with why ex cons come out worse than before. They don’t really reform a person. They just shelter them away from society. That’s fine for someone who is beyond hope, but I am of the opinion that we can reform nearly all persons.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 19:15
I am pretty sure you have to allow people to exist in public.
Tommycat December 30th, 2014 at 01:31
I have a pretty good example. I actually know of an ex con/felon. He had actually reformed himself and paid his debt to society. He truly learned his lesson and turned his life around. He is a responsible father, and a positive role for his child. His ex wife has made many threats against him and her family has also made non-specific threats about how he might find himself hurt. He got a firearm for protection. It isn’t legal for him to have done so, but then he has connections that legitimate gun owners wouldn’t have.
So, the idea that prohibiting a felon from owning a firearm will stop them from owning a firearm hasn’t exactly worked. And honestly, some felons are better persons than you give them credit for. If you intend to keep them from owning a firearm the only way you are going to do that is to bar them from leaving custody. There are millions of firearms that have been stolen over the years. And frankly, there’s probably more that are being built and imported illegally. Pretending you’re going to stop it with legislation is like pretending that theft went away because you made it a crime. It’s a lock on a glass door.
My feeling is that if we don’t at least offer a way for someone to gain their rights back(these include voting and firearms rights which are stripped from people) they will simply ignore the law anyway. This benefits only the black market. It’s like the stupid war on drugs. It’s a waste of time and money with no tangible results.
Carla Akins December 30th, 2014 at 04:34
I have no problem with restoring a felon’s rights – both gun and voting related depending on circumstances. Again, my concern is for th0ose that should never be gun owners. Requiring a firearm safety course, a proficiency exam, at least a written psychological exam and background check. Although the background check needs to be reworked.
Scar December 29th, 2014 at 19:58
I did say it MIGHT work, but I can’t see the future.
But you are correct, the prison system is more about getting them out of the way than reform. And convictions do have detrimental effects on those who do want to change. A person caught urinating in public is treated like a child molester in that they must register as a sex offender.
Again, I’ll agree that if someone has demonstrated they can’t be trusted, they shouldn’t own any firearms. But, at the same time, until they demonstrate they can’t be trusted, I’ll try and give someone the benefit of the doubt. Some of the videos I’ve watched on youtube prove you correct.
I work in a place where they don’t allow weapons to be carried, and I am inclined to agree with that; there are some people working there that I wouldn’t trust to hold a plastic fork, much less a gun.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 19:13
Everyone in my family is a gun owner, with the exception of me. I would not be a good gun owner and I know recognize this fact. We gave our youngest son a CCW class with range time and a new holster for Xmas – I’m not anti-gun. I am anti-stupid. Not everyone should be a gun owner and not every gun owner needs to carry their firearm around the grocery store.
Scar December 29th, 2014 at 20:15
I just responded to Tommy, but yes, not everyone should have them, but giving them the benefit of the doubt until they prove they can’t be trusted. Employees are usually taught to spot trouble makers in the gun shop, so they know who to sell to.
If you’re talking about open carrying rifles in the grocery store, yeah, I’ll agree with you on that. Conceal carry…depends. If I lived near Ferguson, I definitely would have my conceal carry gun with me at all times.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 20:24
I am fine with CC but stunned at the fact there are so may states that don’t require any type of proficiency test – seriously? These are the special gun owners, allowed to carry in places others can’t. For $150, an online test and background check – Indiana will give anyone a permit. This does not inspire confidence.
Scar December 29th, 2014 at 20:48
I think a lot of that has to do with reciprocity with other states. Obtain an out of state permit to be able to carry in various other states. If I drove down to Florida from Ohio, I’d have to stop at the Georgia border and unload my ccw firearm before I could legally travel through Georgia. Unless I get an out of state permit from Florida, or another state. If I get Florida’s, I can legally carry in GA and TX, but if I get from IN or PA, then I can carry in GA, TX, PA, and WI. It’s a jumbled mess and I’d love to see all 50 states have reciprocity with each other.
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 20:59
Hell, I just want them watch the applicant shoot and unload a weapon before issuing a permit.
Scar December 29th, 2014 at 21:48
If the applicant can provide documentation of completing the CCW course, I wouldn’t see why they would need to do that. All CCW classes I know of require live fire training before they hand out the certificates. It is also up to the instructor if the person passes the class or not, too. If they think someone needs more training, or isn’t cut out for carrying at all, they have the right to refuse to pass that person.
Ohio just passed their CCW reform, dropping the training from 12 to 8 hours, and we’ll be able to do some of the class work online, should we choose to. Will still need the live fire and certain class work to be done in an actual class, though. I guess some trainers are giving the 8 hour course right now, but the law doesn’t take full effect until April, so the applicant can run into some legal trouble trying to get their license after an 8hr class right now.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 21:54
Oh, I agree. I apologize I wasn’t clear. Indiana doesn’t require any live fire, only passing the online class/test. (and background check) Several of my husband’s co-workers did this last year and they didn’t even own a firearm at the time – or ever. Their plans were to buy one after they had their permit.
Scar December 30th, 2014 at 18:38
Vermont, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, and Arizona are “constitutional carry” states. You don’t need to get a permit, or take any classes, or get any extra background checks besides the one you get when you buy a gun.
I can see your point on the showing competency of safe handling, but you also don’t hear much about accidental shootings in those states, either.
CatInCT December 30th, 2014 at 05:50
Not everyone should own a gun. Ms. Watts and those stupid enough to follow her, definitely should not be anywhere near firearms. You harebrained Progressive parrots are a danger to everyone around you as it is. You shouldn’t be trusted with steak knives, let alone guns. There are already thousands of gun laws, “reasonable regulations” have long since been passed. Law abiding, responsible gun owners follow them. Criminals and irresponsible people never will change. You and Ms. Watts have only one goal, to make gun ownership as difficult and burdensome as possible until you can achieve a total ban. There has not been a single proposal from Bloomberg or his paid mouthpiece Watts that address any ACTUAL problem. You “enlightened” progressives need to stop slurring and stigmatizing those with mental illness. You set treatment back a decade, at least. Millions suffer from some type of mental illness and are no danger to anyone. Most benefit from treatment. There was already so much stigms attached to that treatment before you started equating every person with a mental health issue as a mass murderer.
And, it has everything to do with lifestyle. You all fail to acknowledge or respect the millions of Americans who enjoy self sufficiency, self defense or the sport of competitive shooting.
nancy December 29th, 2014 at 07:43
It’s odd. I own a Sig .380. Husband owns a couple of handguns and rifles. Both of us have our carry permits. Not once have either one of us been insulted by the calls for reasonable gun control. But then we don’t consider guns a ‘lifestyle’.
We own our guns. They don’t own us.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 07:52
Sweet. Love the .380!
nancy December 29th, 2014 at 07:56
It is a nice piece of hardware!
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 08:00
I had a .25 revolver. Hated it. The weight just didn’t feel right.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 08:24
Ah, the voice of reason. Thank you.
k0diak314 December 29th, 2014 at 10:59
Ive never been “insulted” either…I just find it ironic that they preach peaceful “dialog” in one breath and wish for people to “die from their own firearms” in another. I have a folder here on my computer with hundreds of screen shots of so called anti-gun crusaders calling for blood.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 11:48
Where on this thread or anywhere on this site did someone threaten anyone or wish them dead. It’s like painting all Christians as creationists.
k0diak314 December 29th, 2014 at 11:54
I didnt say here in my original post. Most of them are on FB under national anti-gun groups pages. CSGV, MDA etc…I added one example but I have dozens more. And yes I know a lot of the comments from our side of the fence are just as bad if not worse…Its the nature of the beast.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 07:59
You’re missing the point. One really shouldn’t use a broad brush to paint with. Do people say outrageous stuff? Yes. Yes they do. Do all people who belong to a group say outrageous stuff? No. No they don’t. Ammosexual is a term that really has nothing to do with anything perverted. Like saying a guy is metrosexual. It just means he has a more sculpted metropolitan look. So, a guy who walks around with say … a Rambo-escue look is ammosexual. Why not look to the people who aren’t using that type of language and try a dialogue with them. Note the word dialogue.
I think mostly, for me, the fact that this small group is not only being intimidated by a band of people carrying assault rifles, upsets me. That’s why I am following her story now. I have no problem with protest, but I do when it comes to bullying. Words and protests are simply that. Stalking a group with assault rifles in a ready stance? Not cool.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 11:34
The irony is really thick here… In an article specifically painting “NRA Supporters” as vile and misogynistic, by using a few comments(many of which came from women) to pain them all with. Many of the sites I belong to including the “gun humper” site “Anomaly 100” referred to specifically state that hateful comments towards Ms Watts and other anti-gun personalities are not permitted on their page. This, despite the fact that many on her and other gun control sites regularly use derogatory and insulting language to those of us who actually enjoy gun ownership.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 14:50
Well, I’ve never been on her site. Do you have some screen shots? Did they say you were a c*nt? If they did, then that was really wrong. I don’t have an issue with dialogue, but I won’t tolerate being trashed.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 14:57
Look at the “Featured Comment” on this site. Are you saying you have no issue with calling people “Gun Humper?”
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 15:20
Honestly, I don’t really know. I didn’t really pay attention to it. I would have to say I tend to react more to the profanity laced insults and death threats. Maybe I’m getting desensitized and shouldn’t. I appreciate the reality check. I enjoyed my guns. I loved target practice. My summer job as a kid was pulling targets at the range. I can’t hunt only because I can’t sit still in the woods. I have great respect for hunters and for expert marksmanship. I guess what I don’t have respect for are the people who use them as if they were some sort of accessory, instead of the respect a firearm requires. I guess it is a disrespectful term because I would like to believe there are more respectful gun owners than some of the more rather “extremist” groups. I guess when I see people stalking a group of Mom’s with long guns and sitting in a ready stance outside a store where they are holding a meeting painted a picture in my head. Then I see language like that, and I would have to say that makes it difficult to see humper the same. I could see how it would be upsetting to someone else though. I live in Maine and so I don’t have a dog in that fight with MDA. We voted on Open Carry and it passed. I didn’t want it, but that’s what the people wanted, so ok. I wound up following the MDA story because it seemed like bullying and intimidation of a group that wants to keep guns out of grocery stores. Doesn’t seem like a very big threat to me. I think what would make me nervous is having someone whip out a gun at a grocery store/convenience store to help save the day and shoot me or my kids. There are just some places that really don’t require firearms.
No one is coming to take the guns away. It didn’t happen when the Brady Bill was signed in, and I know they can’t take them away over not having them in a store. What is so wrong with conceal carry?
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 15:50
As far as that goes, disrespectful language is disrespectful language. You can hardly claim the high moral ground when you attempt to demean those who believe differently than you.
Here in AZ, we have “Constitutional Carry”
That allows people to carry either open or concealed however they wish without having to put your name on a list. For many having their name on a list is what bothers them. For some it’s that their state’s requirements are so onerous that it is an effective ban(Illinois/New York). The Open Carry Texas crowd that you see with the AR-15’s and all going to grocery stores, it is about the silliness of the law that says it’s okay to carry the rifle, but not okay to carry a handgun. It’s them exercising their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.
Personally, I rarely carry. When I do, it’s because I’m hiking in the woods and, while I like to think my negotiating skills are pretty decent, I have yet to negotiate with a bear or other wild animal. It’s hard enough negotiating with my own dogs :D In those circumstances, I’d rather openly carry, as it is significantly easier to draw and fire. I certainly don’t want to be lifting shirt layers trying to get to a firearm as a bear is coming at me(yes we have bears in AZ Mexican Grey Wolves too).
How often have you been in a grocery store or convenience store and the store was being robbed? In fact the only people I know of who pulled their firearms during an armed robbery never had to fire a shot. How much better would you feel about a police officer responding and emptying his magazine at a bad guy and hitting you or a loved one. It’s been known to happen. In fact armed citizens have not been known to injure another person while in the act of self defense. There was a study conducted in Miami Dade that showed 0 innocent bystanders hit. Most likely because the one behind the gun is responsible for every bullet fired(if he’s not a cop). If I fire at a bad guy, and miss and hit you, I am liable for your injuries or death. If I kill you or a family member, I get slapped with manslaughter.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 15:59
Look, I would love to respond but my kids are back. You took the time to create a dialogue and I will do the same. Oh, but you can leave out the whole “moral high ground” comment. I never claimed to be on a moral high ground, just stated what my personal boundaries are. After all, morality is subjective.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 16:02
Not talking about you claiming the moral high ground. Actually, I respect you for having a generally respectful dialogue with me. More that this site and it’s mod who felt they should have the moral high ground…
Sorry if it appeared I was accusing you of hypocrisy.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 16:06
Thanks. I appreciate it. I didn’t know AZ had bears. I thought it was desert? Anyways, my boy is chomping at the bit to use the computer. Winter break and all. I do have some views on the police officer scenario but he’s going to explode. He earned his grades and that’s our deal. This site isn’t bad, really. People will discuss opposing views with you and you may find that you have stuff in common.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 17:26
Actually if you check my link, I have a blog that kinda goes into a lot of what is in AZ, some of it isn’t what you would think. For instance we actually have more shoreline in AZ than California, because of all the lakes.
Scar December 29th, 2014 at 18:15
I believe it was another site, but one of the comments was that MDA actually helped Open Carry Texas’ cause.
By bringing out the absurdity that one can carry a rifle around where its legal, but not a modern handgun. They could open carry the old black powder handguns, but not modern ones.By bringing the issue to light, it helped to get a bill passed to get rid of the ban.
As for the store being robbed, depending on local laws, even if you are conceal carrying, you have a duty to retreat before you are legally allowed to pull your gun. That means that if you can safely get away from the situation, do so.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 18:59
Depends on the state. Some states allow you to intervene to prevent injury or loss of life to another person. Arizona allows you to step in to protect another.
There is no duty to protect others though, and even if you are allowed to carry legally without a permit(as is the case here in AZ) I STRONGLY recommend attending a CCW course anyway. Actually, even if you are not going to carry at all and just want to have a firearm I still recommend it. You get a whole lot of information in the course that a lot of people think they know, but often times are wrong. A good example is this one:
A man breaks into your home while you are there. You shoot him, and he makes it out your back door… Do you leave him there, or drag him back into the house? Amazingly many people think you should drag him back into the house. That’s called tampering with evidence, and what was a good thing will now be used against you.
Also, people need to understand that when they have to shoot someone in their home, or wherever, CALL A LAWYER! Seriously. after you call 911, you should call a lawyer. Let your lawyer do all the talking for you.
Scar December 29th, 2014 at 19:23
we had a 2 hour session with the lawyer who wrote our state laws for conceal carry in my CCW class. It was quite enlightening.
I was trying to be broad in my statement about pulling one’s gun in a given situation. I know some states will allow pulling your gun and shooting the robber, while other places might throw you in jail for doing it.
tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 19:29
the way your kind refer to sex and make vile sexual comments , yes I do think you hump your gun or at least fondle it often
tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 19:28
you lie
Nathan S. December 29th, 2014 at 22:23
“Ammosexual is a term that really has nothing to do with anything perverted.”
That’s an interesting take on it and one I had not considered before, probably because it is not how it is used by most people nor is it among the top definitions in any search engine. Comparing it to the term metrosexual, or any other -sexual, is also dependent upon the person self identifying with the label. Would you call anyone homo/bi/a/heterosexual if you didn’t, in fact, know that they were? I personally try not to.
Gin1234 December 29th, 2014 at 19:20
You probably think gun nuts is a sexual reference too, don’t you.
tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 19:27
so basically you think you have the right and the duty to sound like an inbred uneducated petulant child.
CatInCT December 29th, 2014 at 07:38
OMG! Which is funnier Shannon “I block all conflicting opinions” Watts complaining about being blocked ot all of you supporters who have continually referred to law abiding gun owners as “gun hampers”, “ammosexuals” and your endless male genitalia references, complaining about vulgar and vicious attacks! It might be worth noting that millions of good, decent people are villified every day by you and Ms. Watts for no reason whatsoever, except YOU don’t like our lifestyle.Someone as vile and ignorant as Ms. Watts, should stay at home, be a mom and stop attacking other people’s rights. Her despicable supporters verbally abuse others and wish DEATH upon them every single day. Your hypocrisy is priceless.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 07:51
It has nothing to do with “lifestyle” and if you think that everyone should be a gun owner, not only are you wrong but a danger to the general public. Asking for reasonable regulations on ownership is not onerous, it is clearly necessary to keep guns out of the hands of toddlers and the mentally ill.
anigma December 29th, 2014 at 10:17
I don`t need a regulation to keep a firearm away from children, common sense is all that is required. My grandchildren are comfortable around firearms, they NEVER touch one without an adults permission and supervision, that includes their own air rifles. Fear induced by people afraid of their own shadows, creates a curiosity in children which more often than not creates an unhappy incident. Education reduces that risk, fear increases it and ignorance increases it more so. Sure we can be more like the European countries, ban guns, ban knives, ban baseball bats, and the criminals will still find ways to commit crimes and kill those they choose. Or we could educate ourselves and our children. We were given brains for a reason, time to start using them.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 11:06
I am happy that you’re a responsible gun owner, but we both know that is too often not the case.
k0diak314 December 29th, 2014 at 12:02
A considerable amount of us are “responsible” but you only hear about the ones who arent. You cant physically force people to store their firearms safely without adequate enforcement. The street level thug who keeps his stolen .357 in his sock drawer is not my responsibility.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 12:47
You’re right, I am not worried about responsible gun owners and all the responsible gun owners I know are fine with reasonable regulation and accountability. I am not speaking of criminals in this case, just the stupid.
k0diak314 December 29th, 2014 at 12:56
So we should be held responsible for the stupidity of others? The best I can do is ensure whatever I own is secured…What my neighbors do is their own business.
Scar December 29th, 2014 at 19:52
Not many, if ANY, in the “lifestyle” want criminals or mentally ill people owning firearms. I’m in favor of better enforcing the laws we have now than adding new ones. Often the gun charges in a robbery/assault are plea bargained out, if they got rid of that, and tacked on the mandatory sentence of criminal firearm use, that might change things around. Violence cannot be regulated, it’s human nature, whether we like it or not. No amount of laws, regulations, weapon bans, etc can get rid of it.
I had a discussion with a nurse at my chiropractor’s office the other day when the doctor and I were discussing our latest purchases; I had just gotten my CCW license and a gun and holster at the time.
She said her boyfriend used to own guns, but she made him get rid of them because she wasn’t comfortable around them. Which is fine, but I’d rather he’d taken her to a beginner’s class, like I did with my mother, and get her familiar with them. Spouses/significant others/family members can sometimes make horrible teachers, and that’s why I chose to take my mom to a class(I didn’t grow up around guns like a lot of others have) rather than me try to teach her.
Then the nurse got to talking about how he’d like to get a gun again. I forget what she said he wanted to get, but the way she was talking, it sounded like he was more looking to play Rambo than anything else. I told her, that as much as I am for law abiding people owning guns, if he wants to play Rambo, get an airsoft rifle/pistol, and leave the real ones to those of us who know what we’re doing.
Common sense tells me that, despite putting the gun away unloaded, I still pull the magazine, if it has one in it, rack the bolt/slide a couple times to make sure it’s still unloaded, then put it in my bag to go to the range. Common sense tells me to do the same thing if I’m showing, or letting someone else handle my firearms. Common sense tells me that if I had children, I’d have bought a safe before I bought any firearms. Lumping responsible gun owners with mass murders and gang bangers is not common sense.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 20:10
Rule 1) ALWAYS treat a firearm as if it’s loaded
So many people are shot by firearms that “I didn’t think it was loaded.”
And I’ll be the first to disagree with you. I am of the opinion that if they cannot be trusted with a firearm, they should not be in public without supervision. I think the issue we have is recidivism and part of that can be tied to a person being limited in his prospects after a conviction. Even a minor conviction can have drastic effects on a person’s job prospects. I think the way our prisons are run also has a lot to do with why ex cons come out worse than before. They don’t really reform a person. They just shelter them away from society. That’s fine for someone who is beyond hope, but I am of the opinion that we can reform nearly all persons.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 20:15
I am pretty sure you have to allow people to exist in public.
Tommycat December 30th, 2014 at 02:31
I have a pretty good example. I actually know of an ex con/felon. He had actually reformed himself and paid his debt to society. He truly learned his lesson and turned his life around. He is a responsible father, and a positive role for his child. His ex wife has made many threats against him and her family has also made non-specific threats about how he might find himself hurt. He got a firearm for protection. It isn’t legal for him to have done so, but then he has connections that legitimate gun owners wouldn’t have.
So, the idea that prohibiting a felon from owning a firearm will stop them from owning a firearm hasn’t exactly worked. And honestly, some felons are better persons than you give them credit for. If you intend to keep them from owning a firearm the only way you are going to do that is to bar them from leaving custody. There are millions of firearms that have been stolen over the years. And frankly, there’s probably more that are being built and imported illegally. Pretending you’re going to stop it with legislation is like pretending that theft went away because you made it a crime. It’s a lock on a glass door.
My feeling is that if we don’t at least offer a way for someone to gain their rights back(these include voting and firearms rights which are stripped from people) they will simply ignore the law anyway. This benefits only the black market. It’s like the stupid war on drugs. It’s a waste of time and money with no tangible results.
Carla Akins December 30th, 2014 at 05:34
I have no problem with restoring a felon’s rights – both gun and voting related depending on circumstances. Again, my concern is for th0ose that should never be gun owners. Requiring a firearm safety course, a proficiency exam, at least a written psychological exam and background check. Although the background check needs to be reworked.
Scar December 29th, 2014 at 20:58
I did say it MIGHT work, but I can’t see the future.
But you are correct, the prison system is more about getting them out of the way than reform. And convictions do have detrimental effects on those who do want to change. A person caught urinating in public is treated like a child molester in that they must register as a sex offender.
Again, I’ll agree that if someone has demonstrated they can’t be trusted, they shouldn’t own any firearms. But, at the same time, until they demonstrate they can’t be trusted, I’ll try and give someone the benefit of the doubt. Some of the videos I’ve watched on youtube prove you correct.
I work in a place where they don’t allow weapons to be carried, and I am inclined to agree with that; there are some people working there that I wouldn’t trust to hold a plastic fork, much less a gun.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 20:13
Everyone in my family is a gun owner, with the exception of me. I would not be a good gun owner and I know recognize this fact. We gave our youngest son a CCW class with range time and a new holster for Xmas – I’m not anti-gun. I am anti-stupid. Not everyone should be a gun owner and not every gun owner needs to carry their firearm around the grocery store.
Scar December 29th, 2014 at 21:15
I just responded to Tommy, but yes, not everyone should have them, but giving them the benefit of the doubt until they prove they can’t be trusted. Employees are usually taught to spot trouble makers in the gun shop, so they know who to sell to.
If you’re talking about open carrying rifles in the grocery store, yeah, I’ll agree with you on that. Conceal carry…depends. If I lived near Ferguson, I definitely would have my conceal carry gun with me at all times.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 21:24
I am fine with CC but stunned at the fact there are so may states that don’t require any type of proficiency test – seriously? These are the special gun owners, allowed to carry in places others can’t. For $150, an online test and background check – Indiana will give anyone a permit. This does not inspire confidence.
Scar December 29th, 2014 at 21:48
I think a lot of that has to do with reciprocity with other states. Obtain an out of state permit to be able to carry in various other states. If I drove down to Florida from Ohio, I’d have to stop at the Georgia border and unload my ccw firearm before I could legally travel through Georgia. Unless I get an out of state permit from Florida, or another state. If I get Florida’s, I can legally carry in GA and TX, but if I get from IN or PA, then I can carry in GA, TX, PA, and WI. It’s a jumbled mess and I’d love to see all 50 states have reciprocity with each other.
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 21:59
Hell, I just want them watch the applicant shoot and unload a weapon before issuing a permit.
Scar December 29th, 2014 at 22:48
If the applicant can provide documentation of completing the CCW course, I wouldn’t see why they would need to do that. All CCW classes I know of require live fire training before they hand out the certificates. It is also up to the instructor if the person passes the class or not, too. If they think someone needs more training, or isn’t cut out for carrying at all, they have the right to refuse to pass that person.
Ohio just passed their CCW reform, dropping the training from 12 to 8 hours, and we’ll be able to do some of the class work online, should we choose to. Will still need the live fire and certain class work to be done in an actual class, though. I guess some trainers are giving the 8 hour course right now, but the law doesn’t take full effect until April, so the applicant can run into some legal trouble trying to get their license after an 8hr class right now.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 22:54
Oh, I agree. I apologize I wasn’t clear. Indiana doesn’t require any live fire, only passing the online class/test. (and background check) Several of my husband’s co-workers did this last year and they didn’t even own a firearm at the time – or ever. Their plans were to buy one after they had their permit.
Scar December 30th, 2014 at 19:38
Vermont, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, and Arizona are “constitutional carry” states. You don’t need to get a permit, or take any classes, or get any extra background checks besides the one you get when you buy a gun.
I can see your point on the showing competency of safe handling, but you also don’t hear much about accidental shootings in those states, either.
CatInCT December 30th, 2014 at 06:50
Not everyone should own a gun. Ms. Watts and those stupid enough to follow her, definitely should not be anywhere near firearms. You harebrained Progressive parrots are a danger to everyone around you as it is. You shouldn’t be trusted with steak knives, let alone guns. There are already thousands of gun laws, “reasonable regulations” have long since been passed. Law abiding, responsible gun owners follow them. Criminals and irresponsible people never will change. You and Ms. Watts have only one goal, to make gun ownership as difficult and burdensome as possible until you can achieve a total ban. There has not been a single proposal from Bloomberg or his paid mouthpiece Watts that address any ACTUAL problem. You “enlightened” progressives need to stop slurring and stigmatizing those with mental illness. You set treatment back a decade, at least. Millions suffer from some type of mental illness and are no danger to anyone. Most benefit from treatment. There was already so much stigms attached to that treatment before you started equating every person with a mental health issue as a mass murderer.
And, it has everything to do with lifestyle. You all fail to acknowledge or respect the millions of Americans who enjoy self sufficiency, self defense or the sport of competitive shooting.
nancy December 29th, 2014 at 08:43
It’s odd. I own a Sig .380. Husband owns a couple of handguns and rifles. Both of us have our carry permits. Not once have either one of us been insulted by the calls for reasonable gun control. But then we don’t consider guns a ‘lifestyle’.
We own our guns. They don’t own us.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 08:52
Sweet. Love the .380!
nancy December 29th, 2014 at 08:56
It is a nice piece of hardware!
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 09:00
I had a .25 revolver. Hated it. The weight just didn’t feel right.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 09:24
Ah, the voice of reason. Thank you.
k0diak314 December 29th, 2014 at 11:59
Ive never been “insulted” either…I just find it ironic that they preach peaceful “dialog” in one breath and wish for people to “die from their own firearms” in another. I have a folder here on my computer with hundreds of screen shots of so called anti-gun crusaders calling for blood.
Carla Akins December 29th, 2014 at 12:48
Where on this thread or anywhere on this site did someone threaten anyone or wish them dead. It’s like painting all Christians as creationists.
k0diak314 December 29th, 2014 at 12:54
I didnt say here in my original post. Most of them are on FB under national anti-gun groups pages. CSGV, MDA etc…I added one example but I have dozens more. And yes I know a lot of the comments from our side of the fence are just as bad if not worse…Its the nature of the beast.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 08:59
You’re missing the point. One really shouldn’t use a broad brush to paint with. Do people say outrageous stuff? Yes. Yes they do. Do all people who belong to a group say outrageous stuff? No. No they don’t. Ammosexual is a term that really has nothing to do with anything perverted. Like saying a guy is metrosexual. It just means he has a more sculpted metropolitan look. So, a guy who walks around with say … a Rambo-escue look is ammosexual. Why not look to the people who aren’t using that type of language and try a dialogue with them. Note the word dialogue.
I think mostly, for me, the fact that this small group is not only being intimidated by a band of people carrying assault rifles, upsets me. That’s why I am following her story now. I have no problem with protest, but I do when it comes to bullying. Words and protests are simply that. Stalking a group with assault rifles in a ready stance? Not cool.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 12:34
The irony is really thick here… In an article specifically painting “NRA Supporters” as vile and misogynistic, by using a few comments(many of which came from women) to pain them all with. Many of the sites I belong to including the “gun humper” site “Anomaly 100” referred to specifically state that hateful comments towards Ms Watts and other anti-gun personalities are not permitted on their page. This, despite the fact that many on her and other gun control sites regularly use derogatory and insulting language to those of us who actually enjoy gun ownership.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 15:50
Well, I’ve never been on her site. Do you have some screen shots? Did they say you were a c*nt? If they did, then that was really wrong. I don’t have an issue with dialogue, but I won’t tolerate being trashed.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 15:57
Look at the “Featured Comment” on this site. Are you saying you have no issue with calling people “Gun Humper?”
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 16:20
Honestly, I don’t really know. I didn’t really pay attention to it. I would have to say I tend to react more to the profanity laced insults and death threats. Maybe I’m getting desensitized and shouldn’t. I appreciate the reality check. I enjoyed my guns. I loved target practice. My summer job as a kid was pulling targets at the range. I can’t hunt only because I can’t sit still in the woods. I have great respect for hunters and for expert marksmanship. I guess what I don’t have respect for are the people who use them as if they were some sort of accessory, instead of the respect a firearm requires. I guess it is a disrespectful term because I would like to believe there are more respectful gun owners than some of the more rather “extremist” groups. I guess when I see people stalking a group of Mom’s with long guns and sitting in a ready stance outside a store where they are holding a meeting painted a picture in my head. Then I see language like that, and I would have to say that makes it difficult to see humper the same. I could see how it would be upsetting to someone else though. I live in Maine and so I don’t have a dog in that fight with MDA. We voted on Open Carry and it passed. I didn’t want it, but that’s what the people wanted, so ok. I wound up following the MDA story because it seemed like bullying and intimidation of a group that wants to keep guns out of grocery stores. Doesn’t seem like a very big threat to me. I think what would make me nervous is having someone whip out a gun at a grocery store/convenience store to help save the day and shoot me or my kids. There are just some places that really don’t require firearms.
No one is coming to take the guns away. It didn’t happen when the Brady Bill was signed in, and I know they can’t take them away over not having them in a store. What is so wrong with conceal carry?
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 16:50
As far as that goes, disrespectful language is disrespectful language. You can hardly claim the high moral ground when you attempt to demean those who believe differently than you.
Here in AZ, we have “Constitutional Carry”
That allows people to carry either open or concealed however they wish without having to put your name on a list. For many having their name on a list is what bothers them. For some it’s that their state’s requirements are so onerous that it is an effective ban(Illinois/New York). The Open Carry Texas crowd that you see with the AR-15’s and all going to grocery stores, it is about the silliness of the law that says it’s okay to carry the rifle, but not okay to carry a handgun. It’s them exercising their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.
Personally, I rarely carry. When I do, it’s because I’m hiking in the woods and, while I like to think my negotiating skills are pretty decent, I have yet to negotiate with a bear or other wild animal. It’s hard enough negotiating with my own dogs :D In those circumstances, I’d rather openly carry, as it is significantly easier to draw and fire. I certainly don’t want to be lifting shirt layers trying to get to a firearm as a bear is coming at me(yes we have bears in AZ Mexican Grey Wolves too).
How often have you been in a grocery store or convenience store and the store was being robbed? In fact the only people I know of who pulled their firearms during an armed robbery never had to fire a shot. How much better would you feel about a police officer responding and emptying his magazine at a bad guy and hitting you or a loved one. It’s been known to happen. In fact armed citizens have not been known to injure another person while in the act of self defense. There was a study conducted in Miami Dade that showed 0 innocent bystanders hit. Most likely because the one behind the gun is responsible for every bullet fired(if he’s not a cop). If I fire at a bad guy, and miss and hit you, I am liable for your injuries or death. If I kill you or a family member, I get slapped with manslaughter.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 16:59
Look, I would love to respond but my kids are back. You took the time to create a dialogue and I will do the same. Oh, but you can leave out the whole “moral high ground” comment. I never claimed to be on a moral high ground, just stated what my personal boundaries are. After all, morality is subjective.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 17:02
Not talking about you claiming the moral high ground. Actually, I respect you for having a generally respectful dialogue with me. More that this site and it’s mod who felt they should have the moral high ground…
Sorry if it appeared I was accusing you of hypocrisy.
Mainah December 29th, 2014 at 17:06
Thanks. I appreciate it. I didn’t know AZ had bears. I thought it was desert? Anyways, my boy is chomping at the bit to use the computer. Winter break and all. I do have some views on the police officer scenario but he’s going to explode. He earned his grades and that’s our deal. This site isn’t bad, really. People will discuss opposing views with you and you may find that you have stuff in common.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 18:26
Actually if you check my link, I have a blog that kinda goes into a lot of what is in AZ, some of it isn’t what you would think. For instance we actually have more shoreline in AZ than California, because of all the lakes.
Scar December 29th, 2014 at 19:15
I believe it was another site, but one of the comments was that MDA actually helped Open Carry Texas’ cause.
By bringing out the absurdity that one can carry a rifle around where its legal, but not a modern handgun. They could open carry the old black powder handguns, but not modern ones.By bringing the issue to light, it helped to get a bill passed to get rid of the ban.
As for the store being robbed, depending on local laws, even if you are conceal carrying, you have a duty to retreat before you are legally allowed to pull your gun. That means that if you can safely get away from the situation, do so.
Tommycat December 29th, 2014 at 19:59
Depends on the state. Some states allow you to intervene to prevent injury or loss of life to another person. Arizona allows you to step in to protect another.
There is no duty to protect others though, and even if you are allowed to carry legally without a permit(as is the case here in AZ) I STRONGLY recommend attending a CCW course anyway. Actually, even if you are not going to carry at all and just want to have a firearm I still recommend it. You get a whole lot of information in the course that a lot of people think they know, but often times are wrong. A good example is this one:
A man breaks into your home while you are there. You shoot him, and he makes it out your back door… Do you leave him there, or drag him back into the house? Amazingly many people think you should drag him back into the house. That’s called tampering with evidence, and what was a good thing will now be used against you.
Also, people need to understand that when they have to shoot someone in their home, or wherever, CALL A LAWYER! Seriously. after you call 911, you should call a lawyer. Let your lawyer do all the talking for you.
Scar December 29th, 2014 at 20:23
we had a 2 hour session with the lawyer who wrote our state laws for conceal carry in my CCW class. It was quite enlightening.
I was trying to be broad in my statement about pulling one’s gun in a given situation. I know some states will allow pulling your gun and shooting the robber, while other places might throw you in jail for doing it.
tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 20:29
the way your kind refer to sex and make vile sexual comments , yes I do think you hump your gun or at least fondle it often
tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 20:28
you lie
Nathan S. December 29th, 2014 at 23:23
“Ammosexual is a term that really has nothing to do with anything perverted.”
That’s an interesting take on it and one I had not considered before, probably because it is not how it is used by most people nor is it among the top definitions in any search engine. Comparing it to the term metrosexual, or any other -sexual, is also dependent upon the person self identifying with the label. Would you call anyone homo/bi/a/heterosexual if you didn’t, in fact, know that they were? I personally try not to.
Gin1234 December 29th, 2014 at 20:20
You probably think gun nuts is a sexual reference too, don’t you.
tracey marie December 29th, 2014 at 20:27
so basically you think you have the right and the duty to sound like an inbred uneducated petulant child.