Images: Moms With Guns Founder On Obama: ‘Where Is An Assassin When You Need One?’
This is what the Second Amendment was not created for: Assassinating the President of the United States or even joking about it.
Kathy Perkins, founder of Moms With Guns, shared this article on Facebook, and added, “Where is an assasin when you need one?” [sic] in reference to Obama.
Another Facebook user weighed in, “I know…I’m amazed it hasn’t happened yet.”
Kathy’s Twitter profile reads, “Moms With Guns Demand Action! We Demand the Right to Protect Ourselves and our Families. An Armed Society is a Safe Society.”
There’s nothing ‘polite’ about Kathy so her point is moot.
Obviously Kathy has issues with Moms Demand Action considering the lack of originality in her profile. The gun sense group doesn’t ponder shooting down the president or anyone else for that matter. Which one is more “polite”?
Here’s Kathy “educating” Girl Scouts when she was (or perhaps still is) part of “Come And Take It Take It Texas.”
Remember when being in the Girl Scouts meant something entirely different?
Kathy was also present at the Blue Mesa grill with an Open Carry group in Texas to stalk Moms Demand Action members while they were having lunch.
Kathy is on the right. The Moms group members are inside having the audacity to each lunch.
Kathy Perkins testified at a hearing hosted by Craig Estes to expand Open Carry in Texas. This is why we can’t have nice things.
A post from their Facebook wall:
“An armed society is a safe society” was just debunked by Ms. Perkins.
Big thanks to a friend of mine out there for sending me the tip.
All images were obtained via social sites and shared/circulated thereby making them fair use.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
Alex July 14th, 2014 at 10:34
What a dumb ass cracker bitch! Pick her up and put her in prison.
Alex July 14th, 2014 at 10:34
What a dumb ass cracker bitch! Pick her up and put her in prison.
colliegurl July 14th, 2014 at 11:37
These people are so stupid. Every day, I read about accidental deaths from these guns. People in the military don’t come home and carry their assault rifles around town. I have to believe these people who are afraid of losing their guns are either 1)mentally ill 2) criminals 3) domestic abusers.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 13:34
You “have to believe” your completely unfounded-in-fact (possibly) paranoid/delusional accusations? What compels you to believe what is patently false? You should seek help for your condition.
Or are you engaging in some circular logic re-definition whereby anyone who would have the desire to own and/or carry a firearm (excepts legally authorized agents of the state (e.g. cops, Secret Service, FBI, DEA, etc. … or are they mentally ill criminal domestic abusers too?) is THUS ipso facto a mentally ill criminal domestic abuser? Please explain.
You do know that there is an actual definition of “assault rifle”, correct? You do know that none of the people you are talking about carrying in public are carrying an “assault rifle”, correct? Or do you “have to believe” that too? How many patently false assertions do you “have to believe”? And why?
colliegurl July 14th, 2014 at 13:45
The above picture shows two people carrying their guns at a girl scout event. There are also people carrying guns outside of a Mom’s Demand Action event. This is completely inappropriate and threatening. The only people who would be restricted from carrying guns under gun safety legislation are people who fit into the three categories I listed above. No one is advocating for a complete ban on guns. The only people with paranoid delusions are those who think someone is trying to take their guns away. If you had lost a child to gun violence or an accident, you might feel differently. You people completely lack empathy until you suffer a tragic loss. I do not want to be shot by some idiot in the grocery store or other public place because he/she drops his /her gun.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 14:06
If you believe that lawfully carrying a weapon of any kind “is completely inappropriate and threatening” then you need to either 1. move to a jurisdiction where that is illegal, or 2. get the laws changed to make open carry illegal in your jurisdiction. Of course no matter what restrictive laws you get passed that make you “feel better”, criminals will never obey a single one of your laws and will carry guns whenever and wherever they choose. I guess because they will likely be carrying concealed you won’t feel “threatened”, until they use it.
“The only people with paranoid delusions are those who think someone is trying to take their guns away.” Seriously? You are apparently abysmally ignorant of the past and current activists whose openly stated goad is total civilian disarmament. You do know that the founding organization that later became the “Brady Center” was Handgun Control Inc., who clearly stated that the goal was abolition of all handguns via an incremental approach. Josh Sugarman, current head of another organization has publicly stated that as his goal too. You’ve obviously forgotten Feinstein’s famous 60 Miinutes interview when she stated her goal was to get legislation: “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. But I didn’t have the votes”. You’re completely out of touch with the statements and goals of most of the “anti gun” groups currently active, or you are lying.
There are a few parents, from both the Sandy Hook and Columbine events who lost children and have clearly publicly stated that “gun control” in not an answer to such problems, and they do not support any further “gun control”. There are probably other such parents who share similar thoughts and beliefs, but those that speak out have been demonized as “uncaring” and/or, to use your phrase “mentally ill”… as the “gun control” advocates apparently can’t imagine that anyone would disagree with them unless they were mentally ill.
You haven’t explained why you are compelled to believe that people legally carrying firearms are mentally ill, criminals, or domestic abusers. Explain it. You said it. Now back it up with some facts or retract it and admit that you were just completely fabricating falsehoods about people you don’t know.
colliegurl July 14th, 2014 at 14:40
You’re illiterate. I said the only people who are at risk of losing their guns are people with a criminal background or mental illness. The fact that you are all worried suggests to me that you have a criminal or mental health issue in your past. Any man/women who would carry an assault rifle and threaten women who have lost a child to gun violence or spit in a woman’s face for calling gun safety legislation is a a-hole. You’re also incorrect in your assertion that people want to end second amendment rights. Many liberals hunt and own guns. The President has said he wants sensible gun safety laws just like Reagan and Bush before him. The paranoid and rabid right have gotten stirred by the right wing propaganda media.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 18:07
Every single sentence you wrote is either blatantly false, a false premise, or a totally illogical and semi-incoherent statement/argument. Are you doing that on purpose?
You do know that people can read what you actually wrote, not how you’ve tried to change what you said you wrote, just a few paragraphs above, correct? Here, I’ll remind you: “I have to believe these people who are afraid of losing their guns are either 1)mentally ill 2) criminals 3) domestic abusers.”
So if someone has taken at their words a U.S. Senator proposing legislation, and the heads of various “gun control” organizations when they say in plain English that their plan and goal is to totally disarm the American public, you assert that those people “have a criminal or mental health issue”? That’s laughable. You have to be a troll. Not a funny one either.
Where is your evidence of anyone “threaten[ing] women who have lost a child to gun violence”? Oh, you mean people who lawfully carry firearms are ipso facto a threat? That’s not how the law works. One has to do something illegal, including making an actual threat or behaving in a threatening manner in order to, well, do something illegal. Get it? Just because you have a “feeling” or make a judgment that someone is doing something (lawful) that you deem a “threat”, that’s meaningless in the eyes of the law. But you obviously don’t care about law, you want your view of things to rule the world, the law be damned.
How do you justify and explain the statements above of those in the business of banning guns given your claim that it is incorrect to assert “that people want to end second amendment rights”? Are you claiming that Feinstein, Pete Shields, and Josh Sugarmann were all lying when they stated they wanted to disarm all American citizens? Or that people can still have their second amendment rights while not having any firearms? Please explain that one using your stellar logical and argumentative skills.
“Sensible gun safety” can mean anything to anyone, and if you follow closely, or even moderately closely what politicians have tried to enact recently and historically you’d have no basis to claim that anyone concerned about their future ownership of firearms is not in jeopardy. But facts don’t matter to you. You avoid addressing any of the factual points presented to you. Just tell us what Feinstein, Shields and Sugarmann meant by their statements.
colliegurl July 14th, 2014 at 19:07
Democrats have proposed background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers and the mentally ill. If you are not one of the above, you don’t have to worry. Based on you’re inability to grasp that, I believe you’re not in your right mind. Yes, guns owner have threatened people who are proposing gun safety reforms. Standing outside of events with loaded weapons is intimidation! Yes, gun nut extremists have spit on women who advocate for gun sense. I will not take your word for something you or some right wing site claims a democrat said once upon a time. You’re all liars.
D J July 14th, 2014 at 20:43
Too bad nobody did a background check on Obama.
grayjohn July 19th, 2014 at 17:45
You can’t. His back ground is sealed like everything else in his past.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 23:02
I see, your definition and practice of “reasonable debate” or “exchange of ideas” is name-calling, amateur (mistaken and unfounded) psychological analysis, and refusing to take the simple step of researching (easily found) statements from leaders of the “gun control” movement who clearly and directly contradict the claims you are making about (paraphrase) “no one wants to take your guns away, and if you think so you are mentally ill”. So you aren’t capable of doing any critical thinking and analysis of the quality of the evidence that denies the false claims you make.
Here’s a simple one for you: Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns, by Josh Sugarmann, The New Press, New York, 2001. “Josh Sugarmann is executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a national educational organization working to reduce gun death and injury in America.”
If you think I’m “making that up” YOU have some serious problems. And if you’re not willing to discover the facts that completely contradict your claims, well, you tell me what that makes you.
colliegurl July 15th, 2014 at 11:21
Like every thing in life, there is a need for moderation and reason. The people who idolize and coddle guns, have a misplaced sense of priorities. This misplaced priority is against bible teaching. As we have seen, the good guys with guns have failed to stop violence to save lives or their own lives. In CA, two police officers were shot while eating lunch. Unsuspecting armed guards, have been shot at military bases. In the case of Gaby Giffords, the good people with guns didn’t know where to fire. It was a middle aged women who tackled the gunman. If you get a bigger more powerful guns, the authorities are going to get more powerful guns. Soon, everyone is on edge and making reckless decisions. People with carry assault rifles are simply being dangerous, rude and inconsiderate. The countless stories of dumb ass gun owners accidentally shooting friends, family and bystanders. Do you really think the mentally ill and criminals should have guns? If you do, then you must have some reason to fear background checks. Why is it that when republicans called for gun safety legislation the gun nut didn’t freak out. It is clear that this is a right wing tantrum over the election of Barack Obama.
Thom Clark July 21st, 2014 at 12:28
And even a quick check on Google will show that there are hundreds of stories of defensive gun usage that did NOT result in ANY shots fired. Folks on here seeing this debate. Think for yourself and do some research outside of either far left or far right sources. You will see that Guns are NOT just used to kill others. The purpose of Law Enforcement carrying guns is more deterrent than to take a criminals life. When Criminals know that there is a possibility that they could encounter either death or serous injury, they choose a softer target. That is to say they will choose an unarmed one. Those of us who have worked in the Law Enforcement field know this. And that is why the Vast Majority of Law Enforcement are opposed to stricter gun control laws.
Thom Clark July 15th, 2014 at 19:22
There are already background checks in place that effectively do that.
You really aren’t that well read are you?
And no, I am not talking about being able to read liberal blog sites.
colliegurl July 15th, 2014 at 21:15
Critics of the current background check system point to gaping holes in the ways states submit records to the NICS. While 44 states have individual laws regulating the sale of firearms to the mentally ill, for example, far fewer states submit the names of prohibited mentally ill individuals to the national database. Just seven states account for 98 percent of the names prohibited for mental illness, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, meaning most states are in there barely, if at all. In one oft-cited example, Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho passed a background check before obtaining a gun and killing 32 people, despite having been declared mentally ill two years before. States are responsible for compiling mental health records from courts, hospitals, and other sources to submit to NICS, but they are not legally required to do so.
Does the public support broader background checks?
The vast majority of American voters do. Eighty-five percent of Americans said they support background checks at gun shows and for private sales in a Pew Research Center poll released earlier this year. Other polls have found even wider support for broadening checks, with 92 percent of respondents to a February survey by Quinnipiac University saying they favored them on every single gun sale. That number dropped to 91 percent among gun-owning households. NBC
Thom Clark July 21st, 2014 at 12:21
The Vast majority of Americans know that there are already Background checks in place. THAT is what they support. Not Universal Background Checks. They don’t want the ones that we already have in place to go away, but also do NOT want MORE put in place. It’s easy to toss around numbers as you do. But when someone actually READS the results of said polling, they see that such polls indicated that people believe that more Gun Control Laws are NOT what people want, but proper enforcement of the ones we already have. And this does NOT mean banning guns, limiting magazine capacity. As this debate continues, more and more voters are being made aware of the fallacies that the Gun Control Lobby are trying to propagate. Facts and information, from REPUTABLE sources, show that more Gun Control does NOT help.
colliegurl July 15th, 2014 at 21:17
That depends on where you live. In the wake of the Newtown school shooting, President Obama asked for a federal law that would require universal background checks, including at gun shows. Right now, only California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island require background checks at gun shows, according to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. But most states have looser restrictions. While local laws can vary widely, 33 states do not have a law addressing what is commonly referred to as the “gun show loophole.” Similarly, regulations on sales between private parties or transfers between family members can be very different from state to state, where they exist at all. –
NBC
Thom Clark July 21st, 2014 at 12:15
Your first mistake was quoting a hack rhetoric site like CSGV who gets proven wrong on everything they post, and block those who prove them wrong. This is the standard operating procedure of such sites. They will delete and block those who provide true facts that bring REAL knowledge to the people who frequent their sites, rather than the propaganda and rhetoric they spew. They won’t debate, they straight out say they won’t debate issues. This is because they KNOW they have nothing factual to debate with. Background Checks are required, BY LAW, in EVERY state. The so called ‘loop holes’ for Gun Shows don’t exist. And ATF has agents at every Gun Show. That’s something that such groups fail to mention to you. Do people make illegal back door deals? Yes. The key word there is illegal. As in against the law. More new laws will NOT change that.
colliegurl July 14th, 2014 at 14:43
70% of the American public supports gun safety legislation.
Thom Clark July 15th, 2014 at 19:20
The Majority of those know there is already Gun Safety Laws in place. We know that the background checks in place have indeed stopped the STUPID criminals (i.e. the ones who really don’t know better) and Mentally ill people from attaining weapons legally.
But check those stats again about the People. They don’t want more gun laws. Just a better understanding and enforcement of the ones we have already.
NMAXXS July 14th, 2014 at 17:28
“There are a few parents, from both the Sandy Hook…blah, blah, blah…”
Considering 32 children were killed, it is not surprising that a “few” of them had gun nuts for parents.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 17:48
Thanks for proving my point about the narrow-mindedness and bigotry of those, such as yourself, who can only use name-calling as the sole defense of their defenseless arguments and lack of facts and logic.
Guest July 14th, 2014 at 20:09
crying-baby.jpg
Guest July 14th, 2014 at 20:09
crying-baby.jpg
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 23:12
Well said.
My retort: buffoon-spewing-ignorance.jpg
Thom Clark July 15th, 2014 at 19:18
Just as a few of them are Anti-Gun Nuts.
Mike July 15th, 2014 at 09:06
colligurl, I guess you have not seen nor heard what they are doing in NY, CA, or CT. They have started taking guns away from people, and that is a fact, not fiction or some paranoid delusion. But then I would not expect a liberal progressive to have the facts. Also, the legislation democrats, aka liberals, progressives and Rinos have tried to pass included a NATIONAL REGISTRY. Take a look at history and see what has happened in other countries when a NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY was used. History shows that citizens guns were taken from them and the rate of violent crime including rape SKY ROCKETED. History repeats itself because people like liberals and progressives fail to learn from it and think they can just rinse and repeat and eventually it will turn out right. PARADISE ON EARTH DOES NOT EXIST AND NEVER WILL.
stanleyyelnatsDotCom July 15th, 2014 at 18:17
there are some people who should have their guns taken away.
“and that is a fact” you say. can you share one instance of a gun that was taken away from someone that events didn’t demand that the gun be removed from the person’s possession?
one independently documented instance please?
Thom Clark July 15th, 2014 at 19:16
Research for yourself. Hurricane Katrina.
And the information on CA, NY, and CT is out there. Why don’t you look. Oh, yes, and don’t look on Mother Jones, Salon, Rolling Stone, or This Page.
You won’t find the truth on any of them.
Mike July 16th, 2014 at 22:20
During Katrina as Thom said, the US military was taking peoples’ guns BY FORCE, and that is just one example. If you would actually care to find any information for yourself, you could easily find it.
Kuroda Kodi Kazuki August 10th, 2014 at 04:52
Violent crime is always a problem, it will never go down, it can only skyrocket. How about you show me all the times where violent crime is stopped by a GUN without a homicide happening, pretty sure you can’t. Stop looking at violent crime rates and start looking at homicide rates, because in every country that has completely BANNED guns, homicide rates are almost 0.
Mike August 10th, 2014 at 13:23
over 1 million crimes a year are stopped by gun owners without a shot being fired. Again, history is a good teacher, learn from it.
Kuroda Kodi Kazuki August 15th, 2014 at 07:42
I shouldn’t have asked you to link violent crime and guns, because as I already said: Violent Crime will ALWAYS be a problem. Violent Crime is something we as society have to deal with. Guns don’t fix problems they just create more problems. Again look at the UK. They have a complete ban on guns and there’s almost 0 homicides and murders.
Mike August 15th, 2014 at 08:58
I don’t need just one, there are hundreds of examples. Katrina had hundreds of people get their guns confiscated by the US military and local police during an emergency situation, which by the way is when you need them most. California had a woman that had just given birth and because of PP depression, she was put on meds for a few months, A NORMAL SITUATION, but they took her and her husband’s guns over a year ago and they still do not have them back. There are many other similar cases in California, CT, MD, NY, and other communist states in this country. Sure a TRULY mentally ill person should not have a gun, totally agree with that.
Kuroda Kodi Kazuki August 15th, 2014 at 21:47
You didn’t even respond to a single thing I said, instead you just started talking about what you wanted to talk about. Do you even know what communism is? And depression is a SERIOUS medical condition, she could have harmed herself or someone else majorly with those weapons, so yes they needed to be taken away.
Mike August 15th, 2014 at 22:24
You either have never had a child or just have you head up your hind end. PP depression is A NATURAL SIDE EFFECT of giving birth. It deals with the hormone levels in the body. Some women deal with it easily, some women need help. Just because she needed to take the edge off did not mean she was unstable. An unstable person would not have even asked for help. Your anti-gun agenda is all you folks care about. Look at history. It is a good teacher of what happens when the citizens are disarmed. As for the UK, yes there are murders, and many violent crimes, rapes, home invasions and the like. But make sure you leave out the details just to make your agenda look good. Yes, I know what communism is, and those states are moving there at a rapid pace. Deep socialism now, communism comes later. I see you did not address the Katrina issue or states that randomly change gun laws just so they have an excuse to take peoples guns. comminfornia is good at that.
Kuroda Kodi Kazuki August 18th, 2014 at 06:45
Because there’s no point in responding in any of that when you have yet to show me ANY proof. I have plenty of proof to back up my points, taken from YEARS of studies. Especially my comment on how violent crime is ALWAYS a problem whether or not people have weapons to defend themselves, and the fact that the homicide rate is nearly 0% in the UK because of, oh wait, THEIR BAN ON GUNS.
Mike August 18th, 2014 at 12:19
little girl, I gave you the proof, you just did not want to look it up. Go figure, a liberal progressive that does not want to look up facts that slap her argument in the face.
Mike August 18th, 2014 at 12:23
As for their murder rate, it has more to do with the culture than the lack of guns but what ever you want to think. By the way, now that the muslims are taking over the UK, the murder rate has started to rise because they bring in a violent culture. Go figure.
Mike August 18th, 2014 at 12:25
Also, why don’t you go ask the aussies how it worked for them when they had their guns taken. The crime rates sky rocketed and they eventually got their guns back because of it. Also, ask Mao’s china, stalin’s Russia, or hitler’s Germany how gun confiscation lead to the murders of 10s of millions of people. But hey liberals and progressives never learn from history, they just want to rinse and repeat.
Mike August 19th, 2014 at 18:10
Yes guns do fix problems, over 800000 crimes a year are stopped by law abiding citizens with guns. Guns also help prevent a lot of violent crimes from happening. But again, someone with an agenda does not look at the common sense end of things.
Kuroda Kodi Kazuki August 10th, 2014 at 04:53
By the way Violent Crime is crime involving ANY kind of violence, even something as simple as someone threatening you with words and fists.
colliegurl July 14th, 2014 at 11:37
These people are so stupid. Every day, I read about accidental deaths from these guns. People in the military don’t come home and carry their assault rifles around town. I have to believe these people who are afraid of losing their guns are either 1)mentally ill 2) criminals 3) domestic abusers.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 13:34
You “have to believe” your completely unfounded-in-fact (possibly) paranoid/delusional accusations? What compels you to believe what is patently false? You might consider seeking help for your condition.
Or are you engaging in some circular logic re-definition whereby anyone who would have the desire to own and/or carry a firearm (except legally authorized agents of the state (e.g. cops, Secret Service, FBI, DEA, etc. … or are they mentally ill criminal domestic abusers too?)) is THUS ipso facto a mentally ill criminal domestic abuser? Please explain.
You do know that there is an actual definition of “assault rifle”, correct? You do know that none of the people you are talking about carrying in public are carrying an “assault rifle”, correct? Or do you “have to believe” that too? How many patently false assertions do you “have to believe”? And why?
colliegurl July 14th, 2014 at 13:45
The above picture shows two people carrying their guns at a girl scout event. There are also people carrying guns outside of a Mom’s Demand Action event. This is completely inappropriate and threatening. The only people who would be restricted from carrying guns under gun safety legislation are people who fit into the three categories I listed above. No one is advocating for a complete ban on guns. The only people with paranoid delusions are those who think someone is trying to take their guns away. If you had lost a child to gun violence or an accident, you might feel differently. You people completely lack empathy until you suffer a tragic loss. I do not want to be shot by some idiot in the grocery store or other public place because he/she drops his /her gun.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 14:06
If you believe that lawfully carrying a weapon of any kind “is completely inappropriate and threatening” then you need to either 1. move to a jurisdiction where that is illegal, or 2. get the laws changed to make open carry illegal in your jurisdiction. Of course no matter what restrictive laws you get passed that make you “feel better”, criminals will never obey a single one of your laws and will carry guns whenever and wherever they choose. I guess because they will likely be carrying concealed you won’t feel “threatened”, until they use it.
“The only people with paranoid delusions are those who think someone is trying to take their guns away.” Seriously? You are apparently abysmally ignorant of the past and current activists whose openly stated goal is total civilian disarmament. You do know that the founding organization that later became the “Brady Center” was Handgun Control Inc., who clearly stated that the goal was abolition of all handguns via an incremental approach. Josh Sugarman, current head of another organization has publicly stated that as his goal too. You’ve obviously forgotten Feinstein’s famous 60 Miinutes interview when she stated her goal was to get legislation: “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. But I didn’t have the votes”. You’re completely out of touch with the statements and goals of most of the “anti gun” groups currently active, or you are lying.
There are a few parents, from both the Sandy Hook and Columbine events who lost children and have clearly publicly stated that “gun control” in not an answer to such problems, and they do not support any further “gun control”. There are probably other such parents who share similar thoughts and beliefs, but those that speak out have been demonized as “uncaring” and/or, to use your phrase “mentally ill”… as the “gun control” advocates apparently can’t imagine that anyone would disagree with them unless they were mentally ill.
You haven’t explained why you are compelled to believe that people legally carrying firearms are mentally ill, criminals, or domestic abusers. Explain it. You said it. Now back it up with some facts or retract it and admit that you were just completely fabricating falsehoods about people you don’t know.
colliegurl July 14th, 2014 at 14:40
You’re illiterate. I said the only people who are at risk of losing their guns are people with a criminal background or mental illness. The fact that you are all worried suggests to me that you have a criminal or mental health issue in your past. Any man/women who would carry an assault rifle and threaten women who have lost a child to gun violence or spit in a woman’s face for calling gun safety legislation is a a-hole. You’re also incorrect in your assertion that people want to end second amendment rights. Many liberals hunt and own guns. The President has said he wants sensible gun safety laws just like Reagan and Bush before him. The paranoid and rabid right have gotten stirred by the right wing propaganda media.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 18:07
Every single sentence you wrote is either blatantly false, a false premise, or a totally illogical and semi-incoherent statement/argument. Are you doing that on purpose?
You do know that people can read what you actually wrote, not how you’ve tried to change what you said you wrote, just a few paragraphs above, correct? Here, I’ll remind you: “I have to believe these people who are afraid of losing their guns are either 1)mentally ill 2) criminals 3) domestic abusers.”
So if someone has taken at their words a U.S. Senator proposing legislation, and the heads of various “gun control” organizations when they say in plain English that their plan and goal is to totally disarm the American public, you assert that those people “have a criminal or mental health issue”? That’s laughable. You have to be a troll. Not a funny one either.
Where is your evidence of anyone “threaten[ing] women who have lost a child to gun violence”? Oh, you mean people who lawfully carry firearms are ipso facto a threat? That’s not how the law works. One has to do something illegal, including making an actual threat or behaving in a threatening manner in order to, well, do something illegal. Get it? Just because you have a “feeling” or make a judgment that someone is doing something (lawful) that you deem a “threat”, that’s meaningless in the eyes of the law. But you obviously don’t care about law, you want your view of things to rule the world, the law be damned.
How do you justify and explain the statements above of those in the business of banning guns given your claim that it is incorrect to assert “that people want to end second amendment rights”? Are you claiming that Feinstein, Pete Shields, and Josh Sugarmann were all lying when they stated they wanted to disarm all American citizens? Or that people can still have their second amendment rights while not having any firearms? Please explain that one using your stellar logical and argumentative skills.
“Sensible gun safety” can mean anything to anyone, and if you follow closely, or even moderately closely what politicians have tried to enact recently and historically you’d have no basis to claim that anyone concerned about their future ownership of firearms is not in jeopardy. But facts don’t matter to you. You avoid addressing any of the factual points presented to you. Just tell us what Feinstein, Shields and Sugarmann meant by their statements.
colliegurl July 14th, 2014 at 19:07
Democrats have proposed background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers and the mentally ill. If you are not one of the above, you don’t have to worry. Based on you’re inability to grasp that, I believe you’re not in your right mind. Yes, guns owner have threatened people who are proposing gun safety reforms. Standing outside of events with loaded weapons is intimidation! Yes, gun nut extremists have spit on women who advocate for gun sense. I will not take your word for something you or some right wing site claims a democrat said once upon a time. You’re all liars.
D J July 14th, 2014 at 20:43
Too bad nobody did a background check on Obama.
grayjohn July 19th, 2014 at 17:45
You can’t. His back ground is sealed like everything else in his past.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 23:02
I see, your definition and practice of “reasonable debate” or “exchange of ideas” is name-calling, amateur (mistaken and unfounded) psychological analysis, and refusing to take the simple step of researching (easily found) statements from leaders of the “gun control” movement who clearly and directly contradict the claims you are making about (paraphrase) “no one wants to take your guns away, and if you think so you are mentally ill”. So you aren’t capable of doing any critical thinking and analysis of the quality of the evidence that denies the false claims you make.
Here’s a simple one for you: Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns, by Josh Sugarmann, The New Press, New York, 2001. “Josh Sugarmann is executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a national educational organization working to reduce gun death and injury in America.”
If you think I’m “making that up” YOU have some serious problems. And if you’re not willing to discover the facts that completely contradict your claims, well, you tell me what that makes you.
colliegurl July 15th, 2014 at 11:21
Like every thing in life, there is a need for moderation and reason. The people who idolize and coddle guns, have a misplaced sense of priorities. This misplaced priority is against bible teaching. As we have seen, the good guys with guns have failed to stop violence to save lives or their own lives. In CA, two police officers were shot while eating lunch. Unsuspecting armed guards, have been shot at military bases. In the case of Gaby Giffords, the good people with guns didn’t know where to fire. It was a middle aged women who tackled the gunman. If you get bigger more powerful guns, the authorities are going to get more powerful guns. Soon, everyone is on edge and making reckless decisions. People with carry assault rifles are simply being dangerous, rude and inconsiderate. The countless stories of dumb ass gun owners accidentally shooting friends, family and bystanders. Do you really think the mentally ill and criminals should have guns? If you do, then you must have some reason to fear background checks. Why is it that when republicans called for gun safety legislation the gun nut didn’t freak out. It is clear that this is a right wing tantrum over the election of Barack Obama.
Thom Clark July 21st, 2014 at 12:28
And even a quick check on Google will show that there are hundreds of stories of defensive gun usage that did NOT result in ANY shots fired. Folks on here seeing this debate. Think for yourself and do some research outside of either far left or far right sources. You will see that Guns are NOT just used to kill others. The purpose of Law Enforcement carrying guns is more deterrent than to take a criminals life. When Criminals know that there is a possibility that they could encounter either death or serous injury, they choose a softer target. That is to say they will choose an unarmed one. Those of us who have worked in the Law Enforcement field know this. And that is why the Vast Majority of Law Enforcement are opposed to stricter gun control laws.
Thom Clark July 15th, 2014 at 19:22
There are already background checks in place that effectively do that.
You really aren’t that well read are you?
And no, I am not talking about being able to read liberal blog sites.
colliegurl July 15th, 2014 at 21:15
Critics of the current background check system point to gaping holes in the ways states submit records to the NICS. While 44 states have individual laws regulating the sale of firearms to the mentally ill, for example, far fewer states submit the names of prohibited mentally ill individuals to the national database. Just seven states account for 98 percent of the names prohibited for mental illness, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, meaning most states are in there barely, if at all. In one oft-cited example, Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho passed a background check before obtaining a gun and killing 32 people, despite having been declared mentally ill two years before. States are responsible for compiling mental health records from courts, hospitals, and other sources to submit to NICS, but they are not legally required to do so.
Does the public support broader background checks?
The vast majority of American voters do. Eighty-five percent of Americans said they support background checks at gun shows and for private sales in a Pew Research Center poll released earlier this year. Other polls have found even wider support for broadening checks, with 92 percent of respondents to a February survey by Quinnipiac University saying they favored them on every single gun sale. That number dropped to 91 percent among gun-owning households. NBC
Thom Clark July 21st, 2014 at 12:21
The Vast majority of Americans know that there are already Background checks in place. THAT is what they support. Not Universal Background Checks. They don’t want the ones that we already have in place to go away, but also do NOT want MORE put in place. It’s easy to toss around numbers as you do. But when someone actually READS the results of said polling, they see that such polls indicated that people believe that more Gun Control Laws are NOT what people want, but proper enforcement of the ones we already have. And this does NOT mean banning guns, limiting magazine capacity. As this debate continues, more and more voters are being made aware of the fallacies that the Gun Control Lobby are trying to propagate. Facts and information, from REPUTABLE sources, show that more Gun Control does NOT help.
colliegurl July 15th, 2014 at 21:17
That depends on where you live. In the wake of the Newtown school shooting, President Obama asked for a federal law that would require universal background checks, including at gun shows. Right now, only California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island require background checks at gun shows, according to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. But most states have looser restrictions. While local laws can vary widely, 33 states do not have a law addressing what is commonly referred to as the “gun show loophole.” Similarly, regulations on sales between private parties or transfers between family members can be very different from state to state, where they exist at all. –
NBC
Thom Clark July 21st, 2014 at 12:15
Your first mistake was quoting a hack rhetoric site like CSGV who gets proven wrong on everything they post, and block those who prove them wrong. This is the standard operating procedure of such sites. They will delete and block those who provide true facts that bring REAL knowledge to the people who frequent their sites, rather than the propaganda and rhetoric they spew. They won’t debate, they straight out say they won’t debate issues. This is because they KNOW they have nothing factual to debate with. Background Checks are required, BY LAW, in EVERY state. The so called ‘loop holes’ for Gun Shows don’t exist. And ATF has agents at every Gun Show. That’s something that such groups fail to mention to you. Do people make illegal back door deals? Yes. The key word there is illegal. As in against the law. More new laws will NOT change that.
colliegurl July 14th, 2014 at 14:43
70% of the American public supports gun safety legislation.
Thom Clark July 15th, 2014 at 19:20
The Majority of those know there is already Gun Safety Laws in place. We know that the background checks in place have indeed stopped the STUPID criminals (i.e. the ones who really don’t know better) and Mentally ill people from attaining weapons legally.
But check those stats again about the People. They don’t want more gun laws. Just a better understanding and enforcement of the ones we have already.
NMAXXS July 14th, 2014 at 17:28
“There are a few parents, from both the Sandy Hook…blah, blah, blah…”
Considering 32 children were killed, it is not surprising that a “few” of them had gun nuts for parents.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 17:48
Thanks for proving my point about the narrow-mindedness and bigotry of those, such as yourself, who can only use name-calling as the sole defense of their defenseless arguments and lack of facts and logic.
Guest July 14th, 2014 at 20:09
crying-baby.jpg
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 23:12
Well said.
My retort: buffoon-spewing-ignorance.jpg
Thom Clark July 15th, 2014 at 19:18
Just as a few of them are Anti-Gun Nuts.
Mike July 15th, 2014 at 09:06
colligurl, I guess you have not seen nor heard what they are doing in NY, CA, or CT. They have started taking guns away from people, and that is a fact, not fiction or some paranoid delusion. But then I would not expect a liberal progressive to have the facts. Also, the legislation democrats, aka liberals, progressives and Rinos have tried to pass included a NATIONAL REGISTRY. Take a look at history and see what has happened in other countries when a NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY was used. History shows that citizens guns were taken from them and the rate of violent crime including rape SKY ROCKETED. History repeats itself because people like liberals and progressives fail to learn from it and think they can just rinse and repeat and eventually it will turn out right. PARADISE ON EARTH DOES NOT EXIST AND NEVER WILL.
stanleyyelnatsDotCom July 15th, 2014 at 18:17
there are some people who should have their guns taken away.
“and that is a fact” you say. can you share one instance of a gun that was taken away from someone that events didn’t demand that the gun be removed from the person’s possession?
one independently documented instance please?
Thom Clark July 15th, 2014 at 19:16
Research for yourself. Hurricane Katrina.
And the information on CA, NY, and CT is out there. Why don’t you look. Oh, yes, and don’t look on Mother Jones, Salon, Rolling Stone, or This Page.
You won’t find the truth on any of them.
Mike July 16th, 2014 at 22:20
During Katrina as Thom said, the US military was taking peoples’ guns BY FORCE, and that is just one example. If you would actually care to find any information for yourself, you could easily find it.
Kuroda Kodi Kazuki August 10th, 2014 at 04:52
Violent crime is always a problem, it will never go down, it can only skyrocket. How about you show me all the times where violent crime is stopped by a GUN without a homicide happening, pretty sure you can’t. Stop looking at violent crime rates and start looking at homicide rates, because in every country that has completely BANNED guns, homicide rates are almost 0.
Mike August 10th, 2014 at 13:23
over 1 million crimes a year are stopped by gun owners without a shot being fired. Again, history is a good teacher, learn from it.
Kuroda Kodi Kazuki August 15th, 2014 at 07:42
I shouldn’t have asked you to link violent crime and guns, because as I already said: Violent Crime will ALWAYS be a problem. Violent Crime is something we as society have to deal with. Guns don’t fix problems they just create more problems. Again look at the UK. They have a complete ban on guns and there’s almost 0 homicides and murders.
Mike August 15th, 2014 at 08:58
I don’t need just one, there are hundreds of examples. Katrina had hundreds of people get their guns confiscated by the US military and local police during an emergency situation, which by the way is when you need them most. California had a woman that had just given birth and because of PP depression, she was put on meds for a few months, A NORMAL SITUATION, but they took her and her husband’s guns over a year ago and they still do not have them back. There are many other similar cases in California, CT, MD, NY, and other communist states in this country. Sure a TRULY mentally ill person should not have a gun, totally agree with that.
Kuroda Kodi Kazuki August 15th, 2014 at 21:47
You didn’t even respond to a single thing I said, instead you just started talking about what you wanted to talk about. Do you even know what communism is? And depression is a SERIOUS medical condition, she could have harmed herself or someone else majorly with those weapons, so yes they needed to be taken away.
Mike August 15th, 2014 at 22:24
You either have never had a child or just have you head up your hind end. PP depression is A NATURAL SIDE EFFECT of giving birth. It deals with the hormone levels in the body. Some women deal with it easily, some women need help. Just because she needed to take the edge off did not mean she was unstable. An unstable person would not have even asked for help. Your anti-gun agenda is all you folks care about. Look at history. It is a good teacher of what happens when the citizens are disarmed. As for the UK, yes there are murders, and many violent crimes, rapes, home invasions and the like. But make sure you leave out the details just to make your agenda look good. Yes, I know what communism is, and those states are moving there at a rapid pace. Deep socialism now, communism comes later. I see you did not address the Katrina issue or states that randomly change gun laws just so they have an excuse to take peoples guns. comminfornia is good at that.
Kuroda Kodi Kazuki August 18th, 2014 at 06:45
Because there’s no point in responding in any of that when you have yet to show me ANY proof. I have plenty of proof to back up my points, taken from YEARS of studies. Especially my comment on how violent crime is ALWAYS a problem whether or not people have weapons to defend themselves, and the fact that the homicide rate is nearly 0% in the UK because of, oh wait, THEIR BAN ON GUNS.
Mike August 18th, 2014 at 12:19
little girl, I gave you the proof, you just did not want to look it up. Go figure, a liberal progressive that does not want to look up facts that slap her argument in the face.
Mike August 18th, 2014 at 12:23
As for their murder rate, it has more to do with the culture than the lack of guns but what ever you want to think. By the way, now that the muslims are taking over the UK, the murder rate has started to rise because they bring in a violent culture. Go figure.
Mike August 18th, 2014 at 12:25
Also, why don’t you go ask the aussies how it worked for them when they had their guns taken. The crime rates sky rocketed and they eventually got their guns back because of it. Also, ask Mao’s china, stalin’s Russia, or hitler’s Germany how gun confiscation lead to the murders of 10s of millions of people. But hey liberals and progressives never learn from history, they just want to rinse and repeat.
Kuroda Kodi Kazuki August 18th, 2014 at 06:47
You talk about communism and socialism as if they’re a bad thing, so you would rather companies completely fuck over the people and the world we live in for a better profit? Because that’s what socialism is about, limiting the greed aspects of capitalism, and communism is about empowering the people to move the government forward. But it doesn’t work because of human interest. (Communism, not socialism.)
Mike August 18th, 2014 at 12:22
Yes, they are a bad thing. Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, Stalin’s Russia. 10s of millions of people murdered by the state. Yes, they are both bad and they destroy the people and they always fail. They create a two class system, the elites or ruling class and everyone else. But I would not expect a liberal to live in reality.
Kuroda Kodi Kazuki August 27th, 2014 at 01:15
Those aren’t true Communistic or Socialist states, and you know it. Just because they label themselves as such does not mean they are such. Communism in Russia was poisoned by the greedy desires of men like Stalin. The NA’ZI’s were fascist, just like every Conservative idealizes to be. And both were controlled by dictators. Nice try though.
Mike August 27th, 2014 at 09:30
As I said, communism and socialism always fail and always will. Eventually you run out of other peoples’ money to play with and massive unrest starts and regimes fall. Again, you truly need to educate yourself on history because you and those like you want to repeat it again and again.
Mike August 19th, 2014 at 18:10
Yes guns do fix problems, over 800000 crimes a year are stopped by law abiding citizens with guns. Guns also help prevent a lot of violent crimes from happening. But again, someone with an agenda does not look at the common sense end of things.
Kuroda Kodi Kazuki August 10th, 2014 at 04:53
By the way Violent Crime is crime involving ANY kind of violence, even something as simple as someone threatening you with words and fists.
Ian Da Ous July 14th, 2014 at 15:41
Meanwhile, Obama is arguing for the right to drone strike the American People.
Anomaly 100 July 14th, 2014 at 17:46
No he’s not.
Anomaly 100 July 14th, 2014 at 16:43
This is you on a *liberal site*: Liberals = bad. Me = good.
Now grow up. You’re on a liberal site and should therefore, play nice with the readers and not be an obnoxious, bloviating ass.
You’re justifying a crazy woman’s actions. You’re equally complicit in the hatred directed toward our President.
mea_mark July 14th, 2014 at 20:17
You don’t like Obama because he doesn’t agree with you and in your mind that makes him a social fascist, that is what you think everybody is that doesn’t agree with you, a social communist fascist. Really you are just lost in your delusions of grandeur and think you are some marvelous intellect that has everything figured out. That is not how people see you though, sorry. You come across as arrogant and stuck-up with no ability to look at things except from your side.
mea_mark July 14th, 2014 at 21:10
I explain to you how people see you and you come back with a comment that fits into that mold perfectly. You really don’t care how you are perceived by others, you are just way too full of self. What is the point of debating anything with someone when their preconceived delusions are carved in stone inside a mind of one-sided delusions. You are a waste of time for me, the other moderators the readers and the authors of the articles.
Anomaly 100 July 14th, 2014 at 21:18
He’s wasting oxygen in this world that could be used for something more important like Poison Ivy and snakes.
Anomaly 100 July 14th, 2014 at 20:44
Listen carefully.This is not a mutual admiration society. We have regular Conservative readers who come here daily and we actually get along really well.
They don’t call us facists, they can take a joke and vice versa. And they aren’t blowhards.
Stop insulting others or you will be banned. End of story.
Have a nice evening.
BrassCannon July 14th, 2014 at 22:36
You just deleted all of his posts and your saying he needs to grow up and play nice!?! Do you even listen to yourself? He exposed your methods for what they are and called you out for them. He then even predicted your next move, almost to the moment.
Ive been following FVS and reading his blog for quite a while. He’s got you guys fools down cold!
Anomaly 100 July 14th, 2014 at 22:41
I feel just awful about it, too. I should have let him troll here forever. He was warned three times tonight.
Don’t troll. Don’t harass our readers. It’s just that simple.
You do understand what rules are, right?
Have a lovely night.
BrassCannon July 15th, 2014 at 00:08
Let’s make a list of some of the invectives hurled at the
woman in question here.
“Another social and economic loser…”
“these people who are afraid of losing their guns are either
1)mentally ill 2) criminals 3) domestic abusers.”
“paranoid delusions”
“What a dumb ass cracker bitch! Pick her up and put her in
prison.”
“Hope she shoots herself in the foot..”
“These are pretty unsophisticated stupid people,”
“This ignorant ugly troll needs a visit by the fed’s..”
After all this you get your knickers in a twist over his calling someone a fascist and showing that that is exactly how they were behaving? I always thought what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Actually he added a lot to the conversation, you just didn’t like what it was and couldn’t come up with any response but to ban him. I guess he’s right, being able to dish it out as good as he gets it is the new politically incorrect crime. Knowing him I don’t think he is the least bit concerned about your phony self righteous indignation.
Anomaly 100 July 15th, 2014 at 08:25
So now you’re flattering yourself. You are FVS, which now makes you a liar by omission.
Either get with the rules or don’t come back here. We are capable of blocking out your ISP range.
Don’t bother me again. I”m very busy.
Anomaly 100 July 14th, 2014 at 17:46
No he’s not.
Dawn Shields July 14th, 2014 at 19:47
Guess she’ll have people trying to shoot her now that this has made headlines across the country. Let’s see how much she likes guns when they’re pointed at her!
Thom Clark July 15th, 2014 at 19:14
Yeah.. it’s funny how many Liberals threaten people when someone doesn’t fall in line with them.
Dawn Shields July 14th, 2014 at 19:47
Guess she’ll have people trying to shoot her now that this has made headlines across the country. Let’s see how much she likes guns when they’re pointed at her!
Thom Clark July 15th, 2014 at 19:14
Yeah.. it’s funny how many Liberals threaten people when someone doesn’t fall in line with them.
rlibos July 14th, 2014 at 20:57
Another social and economic loser…
rlibos July 14th, 2014 at 20:57
Another social and economic loser…
John July 15th, 2014 at 12:12
Don’t think she’s shot anyone, has she? Well, she’s not breaking the law by carrying. She is if she actually threatens to assassinate. That’s wrong but don’t hate just because she’s living free. That’s ignorant. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else.
stanleyyelnatsDotCom July 15th, 2014 at 18:13
if we don’t like it, we can change it. so we really don’t have to go somewhere else. this my country as much as yours.
guns killing people is not an option.
Thom Clark July 15th, 2014 at 19:13
It is if that person is threatening to kill you.
Thom Clark July 15th, 2014 at 19:13
While I don’t like Obama, it IS illegal to threaten the President, regardless of how much of a loser he is.
J Davis July 15th, 2014 at 21:58
Getting kind of tired of that old “don’t like it, go somewhere else”….You want to carry your little rifles around and act tough…..you go somewhere else…..people are getting tired of idiots having to parade their hardware around. I am a gun owner, but I see no need for this over-the-top bs,…makes the responsible ones look bad.
John July 15th, 2014 at 12:12
Don’t think she’s shot anyone, has she? Well, she’s not breaking the law by carrying. She is if she actually threatens to assassinate. That’s wrong but don’t hate just because she’s living free. That’s ignorant. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else.
stanleyyelnatsDotCom July 15th, 2014 at 18:13
if we don’t like it, we can change it. so we really don’t have to go somewhere else. this my country as much as yours.
guns killing people is not an option.
Thom Clark July 15th, 2014 at 19:13
It is if that person is threatening to kill you.
Thom Clark July 15th, 2014 at 19:13
While I don’t like Obama, it IS illegal to threaten the President, regardless of how much of a loser he is.
J Davis July 15th, 2014 at 21:58
Getting kind of tired of that old “don’t like it, go somewhere else”….You want to carry your little rifles around and act tough…..you go somewhere else…..people are getting tired of idiots having to parade their hardware around. I am a gun owner, but I see no need for this over-the-top bs,…makes the responsible ones look bad.
Thom Clark July 15th, 2014 at 19:11
You folks really need to get your facts straight. While she did indeed say that, not cool by any standards no matter how much we dislike Obama, the Group she started was Moms With Guns Demand Action. You need to put those last 2 words on there, as you have just promoted harassment of an entirely different group.
Thom Clark July 15th, 2014 at 19:11
You folks really need to get your facts straight. While she did indeed say that, not cool by any standards no matter how much we dislike Obama, the Group she started was Moms With Guns Demand Action. You need to put those last 2 words on there, as you have just promoted harassment of an entirely different group.
BadKitty July 15th, 2014 at 21:42
I wonder if anyone is looking at the guy who said he knew where she could “pick one up”? https://www.facebook.com/casey.hindman.52?fref=ts
BadKitty July 15th, 2014 at 21:42
I wonder if anyone is looking at the guy who said he knew where she could “pick one up”? https://www.facebook.com/casey.hindman.52?fref=ts
grayjohn July 16th, 2014 at 06:56
Right or Left it’s idiot bullshit.
grayjohn July 16th, 2014 at 06:56
Right or Left it’s idiot bullshit.
greenfloyd July 16th, 2014 at 08:03
Anyone else think this board is way too preoccupied with “guns?” It’s obvious a lot of people have passionate feelings about it. Like Alan, for example, who seems to relish filling us up with these totally brain-dead, inconsequential extremists’ views to drive traffic to his web site, where right next to all this stuff you’ll often find ads for, wiat for it, the NRA!