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
Maxx44 July 12th, 2014 at 23:05
Obama never wrote that he would stand with Muslims. What he actually wrote was: In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
Dwendt44 July 13th, 2014 at 00:44
There a small industry writing phoney quotes from our founding fathers.
Dan Barton (sp) has made a living selling books putting crazy words in prominent early Americans.
buricco July 13th, 2014 at 07:03
David Barton?
Dwendt44 July 13th, 2014 at 13:57
Could be, haven’t checked. I have seen a video once where he was spouting off numerous ‘quotes’ from our founding fathers that supposedly supported christianity. Only one of the quotes was true, the rest lies he made up.
buricco July 13th, 2014 at 15:02
*nod*, and tried to make Thomas Jefferson into a fundie because he once signed a document dated “in the year of our Lord Christ” (that happened to be the required wording as part of an international treaty)…
viva_democracy July 13th, 2014 at 03:36
They’re doing everything they can to constantly re-write history for their own narrative/agenda.
Maxx44 July 12th, 2014 at 23:05
Obama never wrote that he would stand with Muslims. What he actually wrote was: In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
Dwendt44 July 13th, 2014 at 00:44
There a small industry writing phoney quotes from our founding fathers.
Dan Barton (sp) has made a living selling books putting crazy words in prominent early Americans.
buricco July 13th, 2014 at 07:03
David Barton?
Dwendt44 July 13th, 2014 at 13:57
Could be, haven’t checked. I have seen a video once where he was spouting off numerous ‘quotes’ from our founding fathers that supposedly supported christianity. Only one of the quotes was true, the rest lies he made up.
buricco July 13th, 2014 at 15:02
*nod*, and tried to make Thomas Jefferson into a fundie because he once signed a document dated “in the year of our Lord Christ” (that happened to be the required wording as part of an international treaty)…
runner_runner July 13th, 2014 at 03:36
They’re doing everything they can to constantly re-write history for their own narrative/agenda.
labman57 July 12th, 2014 at 23:09
When your “Let’s shoot Obama!” mantra is a-rockin’ …
the Secret Service will come a-knockin’.
labman57 July 12th, 2014 at 23:09
When your “Let’s shoot Obama!” mantra is a-rockin’ …
the Secret Service will come a-knockin’.
Porfivor Nixon July 12th, 2014 at 23:11
She should be arrested and charged for that.
m2old4bs July 13th, 2014 at 01:00
Yup, free speech does not mean free from consequences of that speech.
Moof Nixon July 12th, 2014 at 23:11
She should be arrested and charged for that.
m2old4bs July 13th, 2014 at 01:00
Yup, free speech does not mean free from consequences of that speech.
craig7120 July 12th, 2014 at 23:16
The right gunned down 2 police officers in Vegas, shot Ms. Giffords, mom for guns calls for the assassination of the POTUS, bullseyes used as political targets. As Jake has been saying for many years, the republicans are out of control. They are fed a constant stream of hate from fox news, church pulpit, am radio. They do not deserve respect, they barely deserve attention other than surveillance.
Vote Dem in ’14
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 13:18
If you’re going to start using the political affiliations of people who kill people, you’d better do some checking. Although I assume that you have no intention of being honest about the facts of the political affiliations of who is actually committing that vast majority of the “gun violence” in our society (even Mr. Bloomberg states that it’s “90% young minority males”), or you wouldn’t have cherry-picked the only two cases that you think makes some irrelevant point. Tell us about the political affiliation of Lee Harvey Oswald.
craig7120 July 13th, 2014 at 14:14
So its a numbers problem, not the fact crazy people with guns are wanting to assassinate elected by vote political leaders and overthrow or secede from a democratically elected form of government. The right reminds me of Al Qaeda, we don’t like the government so let’s kill people.
Btw, the gun violence you speak of is appalling, here’s an idea, take your ccw where the inner city gangs roam and be a hero, instead of scaring white people at a target.
Defend it as best you can, but blood, as you found out is hard to wash off.
LOL @ the JFK remark, priceless.
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 14:38
Re political affiliation of killers: I didn’t bring it up, someone else disingenuously lied about the fact that most of the demented killers are actually left-leaning, not “right wing” as he cherry-picked. Certainly Lee Harvey Oswald was as far “Left” as one could be.
Who exactly is stating they intend or desire to assassinate political leaders? Please document. Or are you making that up too?
Those inner city gangs and violence are clearly and indisputably the result of multi-decade Democratic (aka “corrupt”) rule in those cities with the worst problems. It’s not my responsibility to take care of a problem that you created by way of the “progressive” welfare, law enforcement, “gun control”, and judicial systems put place to coddle degenerate criminals. Your problem. Your “values” created it. You solve it.
Ironic that you don’t want any of the law-abiding residents living there to have the ability to legally defend themselves with a firearm. Even the (“black”) police chief of Detroit, a former anti-legally-armed-citizen advocate, now sees and promotes the societal benefits of armed self-defense by law-abiding citizens. But I suppose you can’t be concerned about facts, when rhetoric and name-calling is your forte.
craig7120 July 13th, 2014 at 14:56
Aww, name calling hurts your feelings? The right and their defenders are such fragile flowers.
You highlighted black when describing the Detroit police chief, why is that? Lemme guess you don’t like black people? huge surprise there. You’re not worth my attention. But feel free to squawk away rightie, you do your best work whinning about how broke something is, btw your style of writing looks familiar, I suppose you wouldn’t confess and reveal if you come here under a different id?
Its not your problem to address violence where you live? Sad, all talk and no action, typical of the right. I think there is another reason you don’t wanna confront another with a gun.
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 15:10
No, name-calling doesn’t “hurt my feelings” in the least. I just point it out to note that you have no arguments or facts, and thus must rely on fallacies and rhetorical absurdities (“fragile flower”… really?).
I mentioned the “race” of the Detroit police chief in case people, such as yourself who are highly biased/bigoted, don’t know that the police chief of a major metropolitan area that advocates civilian ownership and use of firearms for personal self-defense in his city in not some ” white redneck porcine hillbilly good ol’ boy”… as you are your ilk would likely characterize anyone in law enforcement who adopted such a “pro gun” position.
Never even seen this site before, much less commented here. So, guess what?, you are wrong again. You’re on a streak, keep going. As if you had some other choice.
You’re also wrong about where I live and “inner city gangs”. But you know nothing except how to make false accusations and call people names and be wrong about virtually everything you assume. Good job. You’re an expert at it. If you ever have an actual logical argument or any facts, I’d like to hear them.
NW10 July 13th, 2014 at 18:44
Begging the question. Also Moral high ground fallacy.
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 19:56
LOL. That’s rich coming from you! Please explain, or are you just capable of making assertions without actually backing them up? It’d be a first from you if you did, but I’m willing to ask.
craig7120 July 14th, 2014 at 09:08
You mentioned his race in case his ethnicity mattered to me? Well,
that tells me I was at least right about one thing so that breaks my streak. Stick around you will find how wrong I am on many things, but I think I have you pegged.
I suggest instead of feeling guilty after 2 police officers that were ambushed and gunned down by the people you and your “ilk” attract embrace the fact that there are 2 less government employees you won’t have to support with your precious tax dollars. Be proud, you and your “ilk” are spilling blood for that freedom tree you wave proudly at right white people retirement rallies.
Sarah Palin puts up bulleyes on political targets and vala people are shot and killed, embrace the carnage don’t walk away and act like you dont support the killing of “the real enemy of this nation”. That quote is from the lady you’re defending. Seriously, you all carry guns and talk the talk but when someone is killed you guys and girls run from it like its a snake. Sheeeeeesh! crazy people don’t know you’re really cowards and get 5 deferments or sht your pants to avoid the draft, they think you really mean what you bark.
Have a good day
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 13:01
Yeah, I mentioned the ethnicity of the Detroit police chief (James Craig) FOR THE REASONS I MENTIONED, because then his support of citizens right to bear arms for self-defense couldn’t be dismissed, as it so often is by people sharing your values, as “some kind of rural right wing white redneck gun nut etc.”. Though of course the Detroit chief’s ethnicity doesn’t matter to you, because the left regularly smear minority conservatives because the left can’t imagine those they see as their underlings to be taken care of because they are incompetent and/or incapable would abandon their caretakers wisdom in creating state agencies to care for them.
I understand that you believe, because you are obviously smarter than anyone who might deign to disagree with you, that you have me, and so many others who disagree with you, “pegged”. Of course, in fact, you are wrong about what you say, but simply presenting you with a fact won’t have any effect whatsoever upon you nor your beliefs either now or in the future. Because you know you are right. Including about what people you have never met nor know anything about think, believe, feel, and value. You are a model for the values you hold dearly. Keep up the good work!
I like your racist and ageist remark about “right white people at retirement rallies”. Clearly those sorts of people have no right to association or expression, and certainly ought not be allowed to hold any kind of gatherings involving political speech. You’re right again. You’re a genius. Can you please give us a full list of who is and who is not entitled to freedom of association and speech, including political speech? Thanks.
“vala”? Seriously? LOL.You seriously claim Loughner looked at that map Palin produced and immediately began planning his killing spree for 10 months? Or do you think he only first saw it (on thewaybackmachine?) shortly before he acted under it’s magical influence? Do you have even one scintilla of evidence to support that ridiculous claim? I didn’t think so. How many political messages use the word “target”? (“We’re going to target that rep who is vulnerable…” etc.) Thousands? Are you in favor of banning that word in political speech? What other words or images would you ban from political speech? How about Obama’s famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, ‘”If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun'”? Did you hold the president up to your standards and condemn him then too? I didn’t think so.
Why didn’t you provide the whole quote that you claim supports your libelous claim? Why do you only have in quotes “the real enemy of this nation”? Is the other part that you preface the quote with about “support the killing” made up by you, or did you just put the wrong words in quotes? Please provide a link to the report stating what you claim, as it is not in the story on this page that this thread derives from.
And of course, you are right once again when you claim that people you don’t know are “cowards” and “crazy” and blah blah blah. You could say us all a lot of time if you just made a blanket statement that all who disagree with you, and don’t value what you value, are LONG LIST OF NEGATIVE DEMEANING ADJECTIVES AND NOUNS (nuts, idiots, cowards, stupid, etc.). There would be no need then to write another single word, as any further comments about the demonized inferiors would be redundant. Thanks again for sharing your profound wisdom, though I must admit that I will be engaging in political activity with the intent (“aim” would be a banned word, correct?) of obstructing your attempts at legislative action.
craig7120 July 14th, 2014 at 13:13
“Say (save?) us a lot of time…..”
Are you reading this out loud to a class?
“Thanks again….”
You’re welcome
Be safe, Puna
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 13:25
That’s your best response to your false accusations and distorted and misleading claims? Not wiiling to provide any evidence at all to support what you say about other people? I wonder why?
By the way, I did finish editing my comment, including catching the spelling/word error while you were typing your comment. Vala!
craig7120 July 14th, 2014 at 13:46
LOL
Forgive me, your imagination is amusing. I’m not siting at a deposition.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 14:14
I very clearly understand that. You are free to write any falsehoods you choose, as you have so chosen, and then not to provide any substantive data or facts of any kind to support those false claims. I’m not surprised in the least. I just like to ask people to support what they claim so I can evaluate the evidence for myself. But you apparently have no evidence other than your ideological belief system that fabricates unfounded false accusations in what passes in your world for (il)logical argument.
craig7120 July 14th, 2014 at 14:34
In ’08 ’09 & ’10 I debated with indivduals like yourself countless times. Until the day comes when debates are focused on issues like whether spending our nation into debt by acquiring the most sophisticated military money can buy and NOT have enough compassion and money to feed and house women and children refugees from our neighbors to the south, not whether I can hand you “evidence” whether white racists still have a hrdon for a black president 6 years later. Dude, you’re barking at the wrong person. Find yourself a willing combatant.
craig7120 July 12th, 2014 at 23:16
The right gunned down 2 police officers in Vegas, shot Ms. Giffords, mom for guns calls for the assassination of the POTUS, bullseyes used as political targets. As Jake has been saying for many years, the republicans are out of control. They are fed a constant stream of hate from fox news, church pulpit, am radio. They do not deserve respect, they barely deserve attention other than surveillance.
Vote Dem in ’14
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 13:18
If you’re going to start using the political affiliations of people who kill people, you’d better do some checking. Although I assume that you have no intention of being honest about the facts of the political affiliations of who is actually committing that vast majority of the “gun violence” in our society (even Mr. Bloomberg states that it’s “90% young minority males”), or you wouldn’t have cherry-picked the only two cases that you think makes some irrelevant point. Tell us about the political affiliation of Lee Harvey Oswald. Or the other people who unsuccessfully attempted to assassinate recent presidents.
craig7120 July 13th, 2014 at 14:14
So its a numbers problem, not the fact crazy people with guns are wanting to assassinate elected by vote political leaders and overthrow or secede from a democratically elected form of government. The right reminds me of Al Qaeda, we don’t like the government so let’s kill people.
Btw, the gun violence you speak of is appalling, here’s an idea, take your ccw where the inner city gangs roam and be a hero, instead of scaring white people at a target.
Defend it as best you can, but blood, as you found out is hard to wash off.
LOL @ the JFK remark, priceless.
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 14:38
Re political affiliation of killers: I didn’t bring it up, someone else disingenuously lied about the fact that most of the demented killers are actually left-leaning, not “right wing” as he cherry-picked. Certainly Lee Harvey Oswald was as far “Left” as one could be.
Who exactly is stating they intend or desire to assassinate political leaders? Please document. Or are you making that up too?
Those inner city gangs and violence are clearly and indisputably the result of multi-decade Democratic (aka “corrupt”) rule in those cities with the worst problems. It’s not my responsibility to take care of a problem that you created by way of the “progressive” welfare, law enforcement, “gun control”, and judicial systems put in place to coddle degenerate criminals (and guarantee continued corrupt political domination). Your problem. Your “values” created it. You solve it.
Ironic that you don’t want any of the law-abiding residents living there to have the ability to legally defend themselves with a firearm. Even the (“black”) police chief of Detroit, a former anti-legally-armed-citizen advocate, now sees and promotes the societal benefits of armed self-defense by law-abiding citizens. But I suppose you can’t be concerned about facts, when rhetoric and name-calling is your forte.
craig7120 July 13th, 2014 at 14:56
Aww, name calling hurts your feelings? The right and their defenders are such fragile flowers.
You highlighted black when describing the Detroit police chief, why is that? Lemme guess you don’t like black people? huge surprise there. You’re not worth my attention. But feel free to squawk away rightie, you do your best work whinning about how broke something is, btw your style of writing looks familiar, I suppose you wouldn’t confess and reveal if you come here under a different id?
Its not your problem to address violence where you live? Sad, all talk and no action, typical of the right. I think there is another reason you don’t wanna confront another with a gun.
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 15:10
No, name-calling doesn’t “hurt my feelings” in the least. I just point it out to note that you have no arguments or facts, and thus must rely on fallacies and rhetorical absurdities (“fragile flower”… really?).
I mentioned the “race” of the Detroit police chief in case people, such as yourself who are highly biased/bigoted and uninformed, don’t know that the police chief of a major metropolitan area that advocates civilian ownership and use of firearms for personal self-defense in his city in not some ” white redneck porcine hillbilly good ol’ boy”… as you or your ilk would likely characterize anyone in law enforcement who adopted such a “pro gun” position. I know that a “black” law enforcement chief wanting to arm the “black” law-abiding citizens of his community doesn’t fit in with your prejudices, but it’s a fact. Deal with it.
Never even seen this site before, much less commented here. So, guess what?, you are wrong again. You’re on a streak, keep going. As if you had some other choice.
You’re also wrong about where I live and “inner city gangs”. But you know nothing except how to make false accusations and call people names and be wrong about virtually everything you assume. Good job. You’re an expert at it. If you ever have an actual logical argument or any facts, I’d like to hear them.
So was Lee Harvey Oswald a “leftie” or not? He did leave the U.S. to live in the Soviet Union, correct?
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 13th, 2014 at 18:44
Begging the question. Also Moral high ground fallacy.
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 19:56
LOL. That’s rich coming from you! Please explain, or are you just capable of making assertions without actually backing them up? It’d be a first from you if you did, but I’m willing to ask.
craig7120 July 14th, 2014 at 09:08
You mentioned his race in case his ethnicity mattered to me? Well, that tells me I was at least right about one thing so that breaks my streak. Stick around you will find how wrong I am on many things, but I think I have you pegged.
I suggest instead of feeling guilty after 2 police officers that were ambushed and gunned down by the people you and your “ilk” attract, embrace the fact that there are 2 less government employees you won’t have to support with your precious tax dollars. Be proud, you and your “ilk” are spilling blood for that freedom tree you wave proudly at right white people retirement rallies.
Sarah Palin puts up bulleyes on political targets and vala people are shot and killed, embrace the carnage don’t walk away and act like you dont support the killing of “the real enemy of this nation”. That quote is from the lady you’re defending. Seriously, you all carry guns and talk the talk but when someone is killed you guys and girls run from it like its a snake. Sheeeeeesh! crazy people don’t know you’re really cowards and get 5 deferments or sht your pants to avoid the draft, they think you really mean what you bark.
Have a good day
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 13:01
Yeah, I mentioned the ethnicity of the Detroit police chief (James Craig) FOR THE REASONS I MENTIONED, because then his support of citizens right to bear arms for self-defense couldn’t be dismissed, as it so often is by people sharing your values, as “some kind of rural right wing white redneck gun nut etc.”. Though of course the Detroit chief’s ethnicity doesn’t matter to you, because the left regularly smear minority conservatives because the left can’t imagine those they see as their underlings to be taken care of because they are incompetent and/or incapable would abandon their caretakers wisdom in creating state agencies to care for them.
I understand that you believe, because you are obviously smarter than anyone who might deign to disagree with you, that you have me, and so many others who disagree with you, “pegged”. Of course, in fact, you are wrong about what you say, but simply presenting you with a fact won’t have any effect whatsoever upon you nor your beliefs either now or in the future. Because you know you are right. Including about what people you have never met nor know anything about think, believe, feel, and value. You are a model for the values you hold dearly. Keep up the good work!
I like your racist and ageist remark about “right white people at retirement rallies”. Clearly those sorts of people have no right to association or expression, and certainly ought not be allowed to hold any kind of gatherings involving political speech. You’re right again. You’re a genius. Can you please give us a full list of who is and who is not entitled to freedom of association and speech, including political speech? Thanks.
“vala”? Seriously? LOL.You seriously claim Loughner looked at that map Palin produced and immediately began planning his killing spree for 10 months? Or do you think he only first saw it (on thewaybackmachine?) shortly before he acted under it’s magical influence? Do you have even one scintilla of evidence to support that ridiculous claim? I didn’t think so. How many political messages use the word “target”? (“We’re going to target that rep who is vulnerable…” etc.) Thousands? Are you in favor of banning that word in political speech? What other words or images would you ban from political speech? How about Obama’s famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, ‘”If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun'”? Did you hold the president up to your standards and condemn him then too? I didn’t think so.
Why didn’t you provide the whole quote that you claim supports your libelous claim? Why do you only have in quotes “the real enemy of this nation”? Is the other part that you preface the quote with about “support the killing” made up by you, or did you just put the wrong words in quotes? Please provide a link to the report stating what you claim, as it is not in the story on this page that this thread derives from.
And of course, you are right once again when you claim that people you don’t know are “cowards” and “crazy” and blah blah blah. You could save us all a lot of time if you just made a blanket statement that all who disagree with you, and don’t value what you value, are LONG LIST OF NEGATIVE DEMEANING ADJECTIVES AND NOUNS (nuts, idiots, cowards, stupid, etc.). There would be no need then to write another single word, as any further comments about the demonized inferiors would be redundant. Thanks again for sharing your profound wisdom, though I must admit that I will be engaging in political activity with the intent (“aim” would be a banned word, correct?) of obstructing your attempts at legislative action.
craig7120 July 14th, 2014 at 13:13
“Say (save?) us a lot of time…..”
Are you reading this out loud to a class?
“Thanks again….”
You’re welcome
Be safe, Puna
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 13:25
That’s your best response to your false accusations and distorted and misleading claims? Not wiiling to provide any evidence at all to support what you say about other people? I wonder why?
By the way, I did finish editing my comment, including catching the spelling/word error while you were typing your comment. Vala!
craig7120 July 14th, 2014 at 13:46
LOL
Forgive me, your imagination is amusing. I’m not siting at a deposition.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 14:14
I very clearly understand that. You are free to write any falsehoods you choose, as you have so chosen, and then not to provide any substantive data or facts of any kind to support those false claims. I’m not surprised in the least. I just like to ask people to support what they claim so I can evaluate the evidence for myself. But you apparently have no evidence other than your ideological belief system that fabricates unfounded false accusations in what passes in your world for (il)logical argument.
craig7120 July 14th, 2014 at 14:34
In ’08 ’09 & ’10 I debated with indivduals like yourself countless times. Until the day comes when debates are focused on issues like whether spending our nation into debt by acquiring the most sophisticated military money can buy and NOT have enough compassion and money to feed and house women and children refugees from our neighbors to the south, not whether I can hand you “evidence” whether white racists still have a hrdon for a black president 6 years later. Dude, you’re barking at the wrong person. Find yourself a willing combatant.
Maxx44 July 12th, 2014 at 23:30
Making it a true trifecta, Washington never said the words attributed to him in the above BS. If you don’t have facts to back your position, just make up crap. It’s the “right” thing to do.
jasperjava July 12th, 2014 at 23:59
That Abraham Lincoln quote is a fake, too. For one thing, Lincoln would have known that the correct word is “hanged”, not “hung”, and “morale”, not “moral”.
Lincoln never said that, nor would he ever have said that. It’s completely contrary to his forgiving character.
Maxx44 July 12th, 2014 at 23:30
Making it a true trifecta, Washington never said the words attributed to him in the above BS. If you don’t have facts to back your position, just make up crap. It’s the “right” thing to do.
jasperjava July 12th, 2014 at 23:59
That Abraham Lincoln quote is a fake, too. For one thing, Lincoln would have known that the correct word is “hanged”, not “hung”, and “morale”, not “moral”.
Lincoln never said that, nor would he ever have said that. It’s completely contrary to his forgiving character.
Foundryman July 13th, 2014 at 00:53
This certainly exemplifies the reason why so many believe it’s past time to get rid of the second amendment. What this shows is so called responsible and law abiding regular gun owning people are fully capable of committing murder at any given time, they even joke about assassinating the president, given the Cliven Bundy debacle and the cops being murdered can we be sure it is a joke?
I think the gun nuts worst enemy is themselves, it will be their threats and actions that limit their ability to own firearms sooner or later.
BandernsatchXYZ July 13th, 2014 at 01:28
What the right wing can’t seem to wrap their heads around is the fact that amendments are meant to be amended. Unless it’s the second amendment, because that one is written in stone apparently!
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 13:12
Go ahead and amend it. There’s a clearly stated procedure for doing it. Please feel free to use as much of your time, energy and financial resources as possible to attempt to achieve your goal of amending the second amendment.Thanks.
BandernsatchXYZ July 13th, 2014 at 21:02
Don’t worry about it. Half of your party’s voting base will be dead in 10-15 years anyways. Should be easier with all those paranoid senior citizens out of the way.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 03:23
Wow! You are really smart, and apparently psychic too. Mind telling me which “party” is “mine”? Please share your wisdom with all of us. And also please tell me how you divined that I am a Christian. I wonder if you are capable of considering the possibility that ALL your assumptions and their consequent premises are false? And not just the ones where you believe you have pidgeon-holed me, completely incorrectly I might add. But facts obviously don’t matter to you, do they?
Of course the Constitution is amendable. That’s exactly what I said. And I suggested those of you who want it amended spend as much time, energy and finances as possible to change those aspects that you find “old fashioned”. Please, dedicate yourself to the project.
I’m glad you’re not worried about the future. You might as well stay home and not vote in November since it’s all under control and the eventual outcome is inevitable, according to you. Actually I’m rather surprised that you haven’t already moved to one of your ideal countries (Japan, Australia, or England) given that it’s likely to take more than a few years to disarm the 80+ million American law-abiding gun owners, of their 300+ million guns. If you stay here, how long are you planning on living? Or should I be expecting total civilian disarmament within the next how many years? Do you have some inside information? Are you part of some NSA intel-based no-knock no warrant firearm confiscation squad?
Yeah way July 13th, 2014 at 15:49
Replace “gun owning people” with “Muslims” and see if you still feel that “this shows… any of them are “fully capable of committing murder/terrorism at any given time”.
Foundryman July 13th, 2014 at 17:08
Well i’ll tell you what, There’s not all that many foreign Muslims armed and running around the country to be all that concerned about. And even if there were, we have the National Guard in every state for the specific reason to defend against them.
But what we do have is a growing group of brainwashed paranoid Americans like this woman, who think they have some special incite into the Constitution that allows them to call on and consider killing other Americans or assassinate politicians who do not agree with them. They are far more dangerous and a much bigger threat to our security and society than any Muslim sitting around in a cave somewhere.
Foundryman July 13th, 2014 at 00:53
This certainly exemplifies the reason why so many believe it’s past time to get rid of the second amendment. What this shows is so called responsible and law abiding regular gun owning people are fully capable of committing murder at any given time, they even joke about assassinating the president, given the Cliven Bundy debacle and the cops being murdered can we be sure it is a joke?
I think the gun nuts worst enemy is themselves, it will be their threats and actions that limit their ability to own firearms sooner or later.
BandernsatchXYZ July 13th, 2014 at 01:28
What the right wing can’t seem to wrap their heads around is the fact that amendments are meant to be amended. Unless it’s the second amendment, because that one is written in stone apparently!
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 13:12
Go ahead and amend it. There’s a clearly stated procedure for doing it. Please feel free to use as much of your time, energy and financial resources as possible to attempt to achieve your goal of amending the second amendment.Thanks.
BandernsatchXYZ July 13th, 2014 at 21:02
You know what else was in the constitution? An article that stated that African-Americans had 3/5’s the “worth” of a caucasian. People like you who consider these laws written in stone are too small minded to consider that the people writing these laws might be a bit old fashioned. Only so many schools can get shot up, we will eventually go the way of Japan, Australia, and England by banning guns.
Your party is a sinking ship commanded by the likes of Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz, so I’m not too worried about the future.
You are merely a Christian version of the Taliban.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 03:23
Wow! You are really smart, and apparently psychic too. Mind telling me which “party” is “mine”? Please share your wisdom with all of us. And also please tell me how you divined that I am a Christian. I wonder if you are capable of considering the possibility that ALL your assumptions and their consequent premises are false? And not just the ones where you believe you have pidgeon-holed me, completely incorrectly I might add. But facts obviously don’t matter to you, do they?
Of course the Constitution is amendable. That’s exactly what I said. And I suggested those of you who want it amended spend as much time, energy and finances as possible to change those aspects that you find “old fashioned”. Please, dedicate yourself to the project.
I’m glad you’re not worried about the future. You might as well stay home and not vote in November since it’s all under control and the eventual outcome is inevitable, according to you. Actually I’m rather surprised that you haven’t already moved to one of your ideal countries (Japan, Australia, or England) given that it’s likely to take more than a few years to disarm the 80+ million American law-abiding gun owners, of their 300+ million guns. If you stay here, how long are you planning on living? Or should I be expecting total civilian disarmament within the next how many years? Do you have some inside information? Are you part of some NSA intel-based no-knock no warrant firearm confiscation squad?
Yeah way July 13th, 2014 at 15:49
Replace “gun owning people” with “Muslims” and see if you still feel that “this shows… any of them are “fully capable of committing murder/terrorism at any given time”.
Foundryman July 13th, 2014 at 17:08
Well i’ll tell you what, There’s not all that many foreign Muslims armed and running around the country to be all that concerned about. And even if there were, we have the National Guard in every state for the specific reason to defend against them.
But what we do have is a growing group of brainwashed paranoid Americans like this woman, who think they have some special insight into the Constitution that allows them to call on and consider killing other Americans or assassinate politicians who do not agree with them. They are far more dangerous and a much bigger threat to our security and society than any Muslim sitting around in a cave somewhere.
Nur July 13th, 2014 at 02:57
Lets see…Obama enjoying BBQ, while Rick Perry and Sean Hannity fondle their manhood in a boat behind a hunting blind.
Nur July 13th, 2014 at 02:57
Lets see…Obama enjoying BBQ, while Rick Perry and Sean Hannity fondle their manhood in a boat behind a hunting blind.
Tommy6860 July 13th, 2014 at 02:59
Now she’s cry’in about FB making her change her FB name. She goes on to post this (edited for brevity):
“I apologize for my comment “where is an assassin when you need one?” and
agree it was not something I should joke about. I don’t see Obama as my
President but I respect the office and though on my personal page, I
should have expected trolls to be trollin for garbage to spin. I am
affiliated with no gun groups but my own and if I had any power Obama
would be imprisoned for treason and brought before a court of his peers
where Id hope for an appropriate judgement for the crime of treason. My
comment has been spun as a call for his assassination but it was not
that.”
WTF part of alluding for an assassin does she not get, and how is pointing out that comment as a death threat, “spin”?? The definition for “assassin” has a very specific meaning and cannot be explained away, just because it now conveniently means something else to this stupid bitch. Of course none of these wingers could explain what treason is, let alone give even one iota of what the crimes Obama committed to warrant their screwed-up version of justice. Meanwhile, here’s the header photo she uses on her FB page :(
https://www.facebook.com/TexyFitness
Anomaly 100 July 13th, 2014 at 08:20
She’s part of no gun group except that’s she’s been affiliated with, Come And Take It Texas, Open Carry Texas, Open Carry Tarrant County and of course Moms With Guns.
But besides all of those she’s not with any gun groups.
Tommy6860 July 13th, 2014 at 08:27
Well she’s consistent in her own weird in-denial way. Note, in her screed how she wants Obama ‘brought before a court of his peers’, so I guess he has to face former presidents.
Anomaly 100 July 13th, 2014 at 08:42
It’s no wonder the POTUS won’t go to the border. It’s full of right wing nut bags with guns.
Republicans_are_Evil July 13th, 2014 at 09:31
“I don’t see Obama as my President”
Right wingers often claim Obama isn’t their president. To me, that means they are not Americans, and it is time to deport them.
Longwindedwallbanger July 13th, 2014 at 12:04
For one, he has not proven he is legally able to hold the office.
Secondly, the people have the right to bear arms to throw off the yoke of any form of government they find no longer serves them. Unless you are on financial assistance from the government, I would like to see how this government is serving the needs of its’ citizens.
You don’t have to like what someone says, but all speech should be protected. How can you have a full discourse on a subject, if certain ideas about it aren’t allowed to be spoken?
If the people decide this government is corrupt, and it refuses to step down, and cede the rights to the people, then the only option for those pursuing freedom and liberty, and a government that serves them, is to form a new one. Certainly discussion of options for how that is to happen will probably cover the topic of military type actions.
Any wise person knows this is not a first choice, but certainly a viable option. History has shown us that dictators are overthrown, they don’t resign.
So yeah, disagree with her. At this point, I do to. I mean, then we’d be left with Biden. *shiver* I wouldn’t charge her with a crime though. Wanting to see someone dead. That sounds like thought crime. I don’t believe in thought crime. Speech is thought. While I may find speech offensive, I will stand to fight for anyone’s right to say their mind.
NW10 July 13th, 2014 at 12:12
“For one, he has not proven he is legally able to hold the office.”
Ah, a birther. You guys hit your peak in 2010, and have been irrelevant ever since.
William July 13th, 2014 at 12:24
“Ah, a birther. You guys hit your peak in 2010”..
Yeah for real. Just when you think that clown car had driven out of sight, another one pops up.
ChrisVosburg July 13th, 2014 at 15:51
That Orly Taitz riding shotgun?
William July 13th, 2014 at 12:14
“For one, he has not proven he is legally able to hold the office”.
Clearly you don’t understand the Constitution and the burden of proof. So…..? Please show us your proof that Mr. Obama is NOT eligible to be President.
Here’s mine.
Overwhelming majority of the votes in two presidential elections, and majority in the electoral college, in accordance with the Constitution of these United States of America.
I’ll wait here for your proof Gomer.
Dwendt44 July 13th, 2014 at 14:50
That FELONY is called TREASON.
William July 13th, 2014 at 12:18
“I wouldn’t charge her with a crime though”. Thats because you’re not the secret service, and it’s not up to you. Educate yourself Gomer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States
Republicans_are_Evil July 13th, 2014 at 14:58
It is a lie to claim Obama has not proven he is legally able to hold office. The government serves the people every day in a thousand different ways. Claiming otherwise is another lie. Obama isn’t a dictator and isn’t going to resign because you don’t like his politics.
You are a liar. You don’t deserve to call yourself an American. You are unworthy of even being an American. Go find some other country to live in and stop with the felonious sedition.
BandernsatchXYZ July 13th, 2014 at 21:32
How is he a dictator? Did he start two wars without any justifiable reason? Oh no, I guess that was Bush. If your idea of a president is a sociopath who lies to congress and kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people, then I’m glad Obama is a “dictator.”
If Obama was an actual dictator, their wouldn’t be a million and one paranoid dipshits aching and whining online about how much of a tyrant he is. You’re too uncultured and privileged to know what a real dictator is, you pathetic excuse for a man.
You have no facts to back up your mentally ill argument. I’m from Cambodia, I lost over 10 relatives to Pol Pot, you sniveling little man baby, they were all killed for being “too educated.” So if Obama happens to turn into an actual dictator in the next two years, rest assured, you’re about as educated as a pile of bricks.
Dwendt44 July 13th, 2014 at 14:48
The continuous rants and raves about ‘treason’, all without one specific, tells you the nuts are out of the can again.
Tommy6860 July 13th, 2014 at 02:59
Now she’s cry’in about FB making her change her FB name. She goes on to post this (edited for brevity):
“I apologize for my comment “where is an assassin when you need one?” and
agree it was not something I should joke about. I don’t see Obama as my
President but I respect the office and though on my personal page, I
should have expected trolls to be trollin for garbage to spin. I am
affiliated with no gun groups but my own and if I had any power Obama
would be imprisoned for treason and brought before a court of his peers
where Id hope for an appropriate judgement for the crime of treason. My
comment has been spun as a call for his assassination but it was not
that.”
WTF part of alluding to an assassin does she not get, and how is pointing out that comment as a death threat, “spin”?? The definition for “assassin” has a very specific meaning and cannot be explained away, just because it now conveniently means something else to this stupid bitch. Of course none of these wingers could explain what treason is, let alone give even one iota of what the crimes Obama committed to warrant their screwed-up version of justice. Meanwhile, here’s the header photo she uses on her FB page :(
https://www.facebook.com/TexyFitness
Anomaly 100 July 13th, 2014 at 08:20
She’s part of no gun group except that’s she’s been affiliated with, Come And Take It Texas, Open Carry Texas, Open Carry Tarrant County and of course Moms With Guns.
But besides all of those she’s not with any gun groups.
Tommy6860 July 13th, 2014 at 08:27
Well she’s consistent in her own weird in-denial way. Note, in her screed how she wants Obama ‘brought before a court of his peers’, so I guess he has to face former presidents.
Anomaly 100 July 13th, 2014 at 08:42
It’s no wonder the POTUS won’t go to the border. It’s full of right wing nut bags with guns.
Republicans_are_Evil July 13th, 2014 at 09:31
“I don’t see Obama as my President”
Right wingers often claim Obama isn’t their president. To me, that means they are not Americans, and it is time to deport them.
Longwindedwallbanger July 13th, 2014 at 12:04
For one, he has not proven he is legally able to hold the office.
Secondly, the people have the right to bear arms to throw off the yoke of any form of government they find no longer serves them. Unless you are on financial assistance from the government, I would like to see how this government is serving the needs of its’ citizens.
You don’t have to like what someone says, but all speech should be protected. How can you have a full discourse on a subject, if certain ideas about it aren’t allowed to be spoken?
If the people decide this government is corrupt, and it refuses to step down, and cede the rights to the people, then the only option for those pursuing freedom and liberty, and a government that serves them, is to form a new one. Certainly discussion of options for how that is to happen will probably cover the topic of military type actions.
Any wise person knows this is not a first choice, but certainly a viable option. History has shown us that dictators are overthrown, they don’t resign.
So yeah, disagree with her. At this point, I do to. I mean, then we’d be left with Biden. *shiver* I wouldn’t charge her with a crime though. Wanting to see someone dead. That sounds like thought crime. I don’t believe in thought crime. Speech is thought. While I may find speech offensive, I will stand to fight for anyone’s right to say their mind.
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 13th, 2014 at 12:12
“For one, he has not proven he is legally able to hold the office.”
Ah, a birther. You guys hit your peak in 2010, and have been irrelevant ever since.
William July 13th, 2014 at 12:24
“Ah, a birther. You guys hit your peak in 2010”..
Yeah for real. Just when you think that clown car had driven out of sight, another one pops up.
ChrisVosburg July 13th, 2014 at 15:51
That Orly Taitz riding shotgun?
BandernsatchXYZ July 13th, 2014 at 21:33
I love the bats following Bachmann. She really embodies “bat shit crazy.” Her and her reprehensible closeted husband.
William July 13th, 2014 at 12:14
“For one, he has not proven he is legally able to hold the office”.
Clearly you don’t understand the Constitution and the burden of proof. So…..? Please show us your proof that Mr. Obama is NOT eligible to be President.
Here’s my proof that he is.
Overwhelming majority of the votes in two presidential elections, and majority in the electoral college, in accordance with the Constitution of these United States of America.
I’ll wait here for your proof Gomer.
“Secondly, the people have the right to bear arms to throw off the yoke of any form of government they find no longer serves them”
. Yeah you missed that MAJORITY of Americans thingy. Using weapons to usurp the will of the people and overthrow the duly elected Government is not a constitutional right, it’s what we in the real world call…a FELONY.
Dwendt44 July 13th, 2014 at 14:50
That FELONY is called TREASON.
William July 13th, 2014 at 12:18
“I wouldn’t charge her with a crime though”. Thats because you’re not the secret service, and it’s not up to you. Educate yourself Gomer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States
Republicans_are_Evil July 13th, 2014 at 14:58
It is a lie to claim Obama has not proven he is legally able to hold office. The government serves the people every day in a thousand different ways. Claiming otherwise is another lie. Obama isn’t a dictator and isn’t going to resign because you don’t like his politics.
You are a liar. You don’t deserve to call yourself an American. You are unworthy of even being an American. Go find some other country to live in and stop with the felonious sedition.
BandernsatchXYZ July 13th, 2014 at 21:32
How is he a dictator? Did he start two wars without any justifiable reason? Oh no, I guess that was Bush. If your idea of a president is a sociopath who lies to congress and kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people, then I’m glad Obama is a “dictator.”
If Obama was an actual dictator, their wouldn’t be a million and one paranoid dipshits aching and whining online about how much of a tyrant he is. You’re too uncultured and privileged to know what a real dictator is, you pathetic excuse for a man.
You have no facts to back up your mentally ill argument. I’m from Cambodia, I lost over 10 relatives to Pol Pot, you sniveling little man baby, they were all killed for being “too educated.” So if Obama happens to turn into an actual dictator in the next two years, rest assured, you’re about as educated as a pile of bricks.
Dwendt44 July 13th, 2014 at 14:48
The continuous rants and raves about ‘treason’, all without one specific, tells you the nuts are out of the can again.
Frank Singleton July 13th, 2014 at 07:03
This woman should get locked up, and spend a few days in the local jail for this threat aimed at Mr Obama….
Republicans_are_Evil July 13th, 2014 at 09:25
A few days? Threatening the life of the POTUS is a felony. She is looking at 5 years at the very least.
CherMoe July 13th, 2014 at 10:51
These kinds of people are a PERMANENT threat to our society. They are the UNCIVILIZED who seek to destroy the order and rules of our society. All these people threatening others with guns ARE potential killers, and as long as they have all those guns, they WILL eventually use them.
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 13:06
You’re claiming that lawfully owning and/or carrying a firearm is “a threat”, and that the 80+ million gun owners are “eventually” going to use those firearms to assault people? Approximately that number of people have owned firearms for decades, and the general crime rate and “gun crime” rates have been going down for 20 years. Please tell us when all the gun owners (“potential killers”) are going to start doing what you claim. Is this what passes for logic or “facts” for you?
NW10 July 13th, 2014 at 13:17
Remember the Las Vegas shooters from the Bundy ranch?
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 13:23
You mean the people who were turned away from the Bundy ranch by the organizers there because they thought these people were loose cannons? Yes, I remember them. What about them?
What does that have to do with the person above claiming that every legal gun owner “WILL eventually” kill people?
Dwendt44 July 13th, 2014 at 14:47
There were a lot of ‘loose cannons’ at the Bundy ranch. Threats, ultimatums, macho swagger, etc… ‘we’re gonna do this or that’ speeches abound.
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 14:55
No one that was part of the Bundy ranch episode harmed any one. The people mentioned by NW10 were not part of the Bundy ranch “activists”/protestors.
The original claim was that ALL (80 million plus) law-abiding gun owners are going to kill people. I asked for some documentation for such an utterly preposterous ludicrous irrational assertion. I see none has been presented. Only diversions and irrelevancies. Where’s the evidence that all legal gun owners will kill? Or was that statement nothing but “crazy talk” from an “anti-gun” loon?
Dwendt44 July 13th, 2014 at 15:16
Waving a gun at a law enforcement person is a crime. Having snipers on a hill top and a overpass certainly isn’t ‘peaceful’ by any standards. The veiled threats and blatant intimidation, besides the illegal activities of Bundy himself are certainly within the classification of ‘loose cannons’.
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 15:24
How many people that committed the “crimes” you list have been arrested, charged and/or prosecuted?
You can define “loose cannons”, “[not] peaceful”, “veiled threats and blatant intimidation” in various ways, ways which could be equally applied to all sides participating in those events.
Bottom line is: the killers weren’t part of the Bundy ranch group, and were not allowed on the property, and no one that was allowed on the Bundy property harmed anyone.
Do you, or do you not, support the assertion by the originator of this thread that ALL (80 million+) law-abiding firearm owners WILL kill people with their guns?
NW10 July 13th, 2014 at 18:42
Bottom line is, if you’re showing up with guns, you’re there to intimidate, period. That is NOT responsible gun ownership nor is it peaceful protesting, Did you see MLK Jr and the freedom riders marching with guns? Did Susan B. Anthony wave a gun before she was arrested?
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 19:53
I believe “peaceful” is what someone DOES, not what they may or may not be in possession of. If someone has any kind of weapon (knife, stick, fist, gun, etc.) they are peaceful until they are not, and if used in legal self-defense, most people agree that there is a moral right to self defense.
Are the “unarmed” people who throw rocks and bottles and bricks at cops at “peace protests” peaceful?
Martin Luther King applied for a CCW permit, which was, of course, given his location in the South, denied by police. His home had numerous firearms, until he later decided that he ought not have them in his home. Ever heard of the Deacons of Defense and Justice? They were a civil right organization (same race as Dr. King) who carried firearms and were strong advocates for self-defense. The original laws prohibiting firearm ownership and possession were aimed at post civil war “freed” slaves who wanted to exercise their natural, civil and Constiuttionall-protected rights, but were denied, including an acknowledgement by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision that if they were granted “equal rights” they would then have to be allowed to possess and carry firearms.
Of course you are free to refuse to act in self-defense, and allow whatever may happen to you at the hands of others. Thousands of people died in the South because they had no serious means (firearms) to defend themselves at the hands of Ku Klux Klan members and others determined to keep them second-class citizens.
WhatReally July 14th, 2014 at 17:43
You said “The original claim was that ALL (80 million plus) law-abiding gun owners are going to kill people.” Please point us to that quote. I haven’t seen those words written anywhere in these threads, other than by you. So, then, are you the one that’s saying this?
WhatReally July 13th, 2014 at 19:51
It is quite apparent that your reading comprehension is sub-par, so I therefore question your comprehension, period. Nowhere did the person above claim that ‘every legal gun owner “WILL eventually” kill people’. What they said was, and I quote, “All these people threatening others with guns ARE potential killers, and as long as they have all those guns, they WILL eventually use them.” Can you comprehend the difference? Unless “every legal gun owner” is “threatening others with guns”, then you are wrong, and guilty, as most tea-baggers are, of twisting facts to match your agenda. But if you are correct, then we indeed have a problem.
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 20:17
Yeah, “sub-par”, “tea bagger”, “twisting facts”… par for the course for persons such as yourself who like to belittle those they disagree with.
To whom, exactly, does the commenter (CherMoe) refer with the phrase “these kinds of people”? You’re claiming that does not refer to all law-abiding firearm owners? Evidence?
Who are “all these people threatening others with guns”? The woman in the picture is standing in public lawfully carrying a firearm. She is not threatening anyone. What evidence do you have that she has threatened anyone? How is that threatening any more than a law enforcement officer legally carrying a firearm in public? Anyone who owns a firearm and openly disagrees with particular politicians or their policies? People who have and use legal CCW permits? People who legally open carry firearms?
I’ll let you whittle down the group to as small a one as you’d like while you attempt to shoehorn a disingenuous (mis)interpretation of CherMoe’s comment. Tell me, who constitutes that group? And then tell me that you stand by CherMoe’s claim that “they WILL eventually use them”.
Oh, maybe you mean that my reading comprehension is “sub-par” because I ought to have known that what CherMoe meant by “use them” was “go to a legal shooting range and shoot paper”. I just found it unusual for someone talk about people shooting paper targets as “potential killers”.
Please supply us with your “par” reading comprehension interpretation of who the “potential killers” are that “WILL eventually use them”.
WhatReally July 13th, 2014 at 20:54
Gladly. CherMoe was not speaking of all sensible,legal gun owners, and if you believed he/she was, then that’s your paranoia showing. He/She was referring to the nuts, such as this article is written about, who think nothing about calling for an assassin to the president of the United Sates, for example. How do I know this? Because He/She wrote “all these people threatening others”, in reference to a remark about the woman in this article, but you understood “all legal gun owners”. I call that sub-par comprehension. Sorry. It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing. You must first understand what you’re agreeing or disagreeing with. And as far as standing by her claim that “they will eventually use them”, who can say? The important fact is that they have already shown a huge lack of judgement just by posting such a statement. Who knows just how far that lack of judgement will go?
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 03:08
How do you know who, or how many, she was referring to as “nuts” (your term)? You’re just making stuff up to suit your unsupported premise, because you, for whatever reason, can’t admit that someone who shares your values and beliefs has made a totally unfounded paranoid statement with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Either that or they are deliberately lying.
Why don’t you comment on her obvious grammatical errors if, as you claim, the comment is about “the woman [singular] in this article” and her reference to “all these people threatening others”? Let me guess, you’ll just pass that obvious contradiction to what you wrote as “inconsequential”, or what exactly? That comment is obviously directed at a large number of people (plural). Or are you claiming that “all these people” equals “woman in this article”?
No one “call[ed] for an assassin to the president”. It was a question, in a vernacular that is commonly used in a humorous manner. Where are your so-called comprehension skills now? I guess we’ll see if law enforcement takes her statement as a “credible threat” or not. Or do you want to file charges yourself? Are you using the Patriot Act to assert that such statements are “terroristic threats”? I have to wonder if you were so concerned about “nuts” when Bush was being hung and burned in effigy hundreds or thousands of times during his term of office? Let me guess: no, you never said a word about arresting those people who were making threats against the president.
So you think who is “threatening people with guns”? The woman subject of the article never did. The photos show her legally bearing arms and threatening no one. If she had been threatening someone, you can be sure someone of your ilk would have been on 911 reporting it. Protesting a meeting of your opponents is not “stalking”, that’s absurd. Those people were lawfully making their views known on public property and in no way violated any law. Or do advocate for all the people outside the White House and other political venues be jailed for “stalking”? Absurd.
Your response to the assertion that all those people (plural) who are “threatening people [with guns] will eventually use them” is laughable. “Who can say?” Really? That’s the best you can do? Are you serious? You won’t even define who the group is, except that it’s a group (plural) and that it’s a singular person (“the woman in the article”). You’re not willing to take any stand at all about the actual content of the comment you defend. Coward.
WhatReally July 14th, 2014 at 14:06
Your comments are so “all over the board” that I don’t
really know where to begin. But I’ll give it a try.
1. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Manual, “Of the
individuals who come to the Secret Service’s attention as creating a possible danger to one of their protectees, approximately 75 percent are mentally ill.” (section 9-65.140 Publicity Concerning Threats Against Government
Officials). There is some question as to what constitutes a threat, and what does not. Those lines can get very blurry. A lot more has to be taken into consideration. However, it is quite clear that she has come to the Secret Service’s attention, so there is only about a 1 in 4 chance that she is mentally stable, which increases the odds of her doing something foolish. Jerry
Blanchard, Raymond H. Geisel, Khalid Kelly, Mitchell Kusick, are all people who have been arrested strictly because of uttering statements about killing the president, not because of any actions. Paul Schlesselman and Daniel Cowart, Kristy
Lee Roshia, Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, 4 US Army soldiers, including Private First Class Michael Burnett, Glenn Scott Crawford and Eric J. Feight, put their threats into action, which included radiation-emitting devices, stalking, and murdering others who knew about their plot. These are just some of the stories that have been reported, because “The United States Attorney must carefully consider the possible adverse effect before releasing information to the public concerning cases and matters involving threats against the President” (again, section 9-65.140 Publicity Concerning Threats Against Government Officials). Does that answer
your question about the nuts?
2. If you truly believe that the statement “Where is an
assassin when you need one” is humorous, when referring to the president, then I question your mental stability. What is the least bit humorous about killing another person…ANY person?
3. You said “Protesting a meeting of your opponents is
not “stalking”, that’s absurd.” I agree. Where did I ever even
mention that? Please, show me my quote. I think you’re getting your rants confused.
4. As far as the picture of her with the gun over her shoulder, that’s an entirely different argument. I’m not even talking about
that. Again, I believe you must be arguing with somebody else about that, and just got confused.
5. You said “I have to wonder if you were so concerned
about “nuts” when Bush was being hung and burned in effigy hundreds or thousands of times during his term of office? Let me guess: no, you never said a word about arresting those people who were making threats against the president.” As a matter of fact, I was extremely concerned about that. No
matter how I felt about President Bush, nobody deserves to be killed because they disagree with somebody else…about politics, religion, race, sex…ANYTHING. It’s barbaric, and makes us as a nation look pathetic.
6. And, by the way, many people HAVE reported her…not to 911 (local police…really?), but to the FBI and the Secret Service.
Have I cleared everything up for you?
BandernsatchXYZ July 13th, 2014 at 21:25
You seem mad. Let me keep it short and sweet, even though you have plenty of time on your hands. Old cranky bigots all have to die, and with it, their political influence. Your party is running on the fumes of paranoid old kooks.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 03:30
You seem ignorant. Let me keep it short and sweet, even though you won’t even entertain the possibility that you could be making false assumptions. Just tell me, what is my party, and what is my religion. Please be specific rather than couching your charges in words like “party” and “Christian”.
We “paranoid old kook cranky bigots” are awaiting the enlightened revelations of such a wise person as you, who apparently cannot even make disparaging personal name-calling attacks with the slightest bit of accuracy. Tell us something else you don’t know, but think you know.
BandernsatchXYZ July 14th, 2014 at 19:23
Let it sink in. Old people die.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 23:09
Uh huh. And I guess according to you only people you disagree with will die, while you and your ideologically “superior” elite leftist nanny-staters are all going to happily live forever in your collectivist utopia, right?
Hate to break it to you (not really), but you and yours are all going to die in the same time and way… well unless you get your way fairly soon and end up in a “re-education” gulag.
BandernsatchXYZ July 14th, 2014 at 19:23
Let it sink in. Old people die.
Frank Singleton July 14th, 2014 at 16:26
You’re right….
Frank Singleton July 13th, 2014 at 07:03
This woman should get locked up, and spend a few days in the local jail for this threat aimed at Mr Obama….
Republicans_are_Evil July 13th, 2014 at 09:25
A few days? Threatening the life of the POTUS is a felony. She is looking at 5 years at the very least.
CherMoe July 13th, 2014 at 10:51
These kinds of people are a PERMANENT threat to our society. They are the UNCIVILIZED who seek to destroy the order and rules of our society. All these people threatening others with guns ARE potential killers, and as long as they have all those guns, they WILL eventually use them.
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 13:06
You’re claiming that lawfully owning and/or carrying a firearm is “a threat”, and that the 80+ million gun owners are “eventually” going to use those firearms to assault people? Approximately that number of people have owned firearms for decades, and the general crime rate and “gun crime” rates have been going down for 20 years. Please tell us when all the gun owners (“potential killers”) are going to start doing what you claim. Is this what passes for logic or “facts” for you?
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 13th, 2014 at 13:17
Remember the Las Vegas shooters from the Bundy ranch?
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 13:23
You mean the people who were turned away from the Bundy ranch by the organizers there because they thought these people were loose cannons? Yes, I remember them. What about them?
What does that have to do with the person above claiming that every legal gun owner “WILL eventually” kill people?
Dwendt44 July 13th, 2014 at 14:47
There were a lot of ‘loose cannons’ at the Bundy ranch. Threats, ultimatums, macho swagger, etc… ‘we’re gonna do this or that’ speeches abound.
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 14:55
No one that was part of the Bundy ranch episode harmed any one. The people mentioned by NW10 were not part of the Bundy ranch “activists”/protestors.
The original claim was that ALL (80 million plus) law-abiding gun owners are going to kill people. I asked for some documentation for such an utterly preposterous ludicrous irrational assertion. I see none has been presented. Only diversions and irrelevancies. Where’s the evidence that all legal gun owners will kill? Or was that statement nothing but “crazy talk” from an “anti-gun” loon?
Dwendt44 July 13th, 2014 at 15:16
Waving a gun at a law enforcement person is a crime. Having snipers on a hill top and a overpass certainly isn’t ‘peaceful’ by any standards. The veiled threats and blatant intimidation, besides the illegal activities of Bundy himself are certainly within the classification of ‘loose cannons’.
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 15:24
How many people that committed the “crimes” you list have been arrested, charged and/or prosecuted?
You can define “loose cannons”, “[not] peaceful”, “veiled threats and blatant intimidation” in various ways, ways which could be equally applied to all sides participating in those events.
Bottom line is: the killers weren’t part of the Bundy ranch group, and were not allowed on the property, and no one that was allowed on the Bundy property harmed anyone.
Do you, or do you not, support the assertion by the originator of this thread that ALL (80 million+) law-abiding firearm owners WILL kill people with their guns?
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 13th, 2014 at 18:42
Bottom line is, if you’re showing up with guns, you’re there to intimidate, period. That is NOT responsible gun ownership nor is it peaceful protesting, Did you see MLK Jr and the freedom riders marching with guns? Did Susan B. Anthony wave a gun before she was arrested?
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 19:53
I believe “peaceful” is what someone DOES, not what they may or may not be in possession of. If someone has any kind of weapon (knife, stick, fist, gun, etc.) they are peaceful until they are not, and if used in legal self-defense, most people agree that there is a moral right to self defense.
Are the “unarmed” people who throw rocks and bottles and bricks at cops at “peace protests” peaceful?
Martin Luther King applied for a CCW permit, which was, of course, given his location in the South, denied by police. His home had numerous firearms, until he later decided that he ought not have them in his home. Ever heard of the Deacons of Defense and Justice? They were a civil right organization (same race as Dr. King) who carried firearms and were strong advocates for self-defense. The original laws prohibiting firearm ownership and possession were aimed at post civil war “freed” slaves who wanted to exercise their natural, civil and Constiuttionall-protected rights, but were denied, including an acknowledgement by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision that if they were granted “equal rights” they would then have to be allowed to possess and carry firearms.
Of course you are free to refuse to act in self-defense, and allow whatever may happen to you at the hands of others. Thousands of people died in the South because they had no serious means (firearms) to defend themselves at the hands of Ku Klux Klan members and others determined to keep them second-class citizens.
WhatReally July 14th, 2014 at 17:43
You said “The original claim was that ALL (80 million plus) law-abiding gun owners are going to kill people.” Please point us to that quote. I haven’t seen those words written anywhere in these threads, other than by you. So, then, are you the one that’s saying this?
WhatReally July 13th, 2014 at 19:51
It is quite apparent that your reading comprehension is sub-par, so I therefore question your comprehension, period. Nowhere did the person above claim that ‘every legal gun owner “WILL eventually” kill people’. What they said was, and I quote, “All these people threatening others with guns ARE potential killers, and as long as they have all those guns, they WILL eventually use them.” Can you comprehend the difference? Unless “every legal gun owner” is “threatening others with guns”, then you are wrong, and guilty, as most tea-baggers are, of twisting facts to match your agenda. But if you are correct, then we indeed have a problem.
PunaPerson July 13th, 2014 at 20:17
Yeah, “sub-par”, “tea bagger”, “twisting facts”… par for the course for persons such as yourself who like to belittle those they disagree with.
To whom, exactly, does the commenter (CherMoe) refer with the phrase “these kinds of people”? You’re claiming that does not refer to all law-abiding firearm owners? Evidence?
Who are “all these people threatening others with guns”? The woman in the picture is standing in public lawfully carrying a firearm. She is not threatening anyone. What evidence do you have that she has threatened anyone? How is that threatening any more than a law enforcement officer legally carrying a firearm in public? Anyone who owns a firearm and openly disagrees with particular politicians or their policies? People who have and use legal CCW permits? People who legally open carry firearms?
I’ll let you whittle down the group to as small a one as you’d like while you attempt to shoehorn a disingenuous (mis)interpretation of CherMoe’s comment. Tell me, who constitutes that group? And then tell me that you stand by CherMoe’s claim that “they WILL eventually use them”.
Oh, maybe you mean that my reading comprehension is “sub-par” because I ought to have known that what CherMoe meant by “use them” was “go to a legal shooting range and shoot paper”. I just found it unusual for someone talk about people shooting paper targets as “potential killers”.
Please supply us with your “par” reading comprehension interpretation of who the “potential killers” are that “WILL eventually use them”.
WhatReally July 13th, 2014 at 20:54
Gladly. CherMoe was not speaking of all sensible,legal gun owners, and if you believed he/she was, then that’s your paranoia showing. He/She was referring to the nuts, such as this article is written about, who think nothing about calling for an assassin to the president of the United Sates, for example. How do I know this? Because He/She wrote “all these people threatening others”, in reference to a remark about the woman in this article, but you understood “all legal gun owners”. I call that sub-par comprehension. Sorry. It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing. You must first understand what you’re agreeing or disagreeing with. And as far as standing by her claim that “they will eventually use them”, who can say? The important fact is that they have already shown a huge lack of judgement just by posting such a statement. Who knows just how far that lack of judgement will go?
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 03:08
How do you know who, or how many, she was referring to as “nuts” (your term)? You’re just making stuff up to suit your unsupported premise, because you, for whatever reason, can’t admit that someone who shares your values and beliefs has made a totally unfounded paranoid statement with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Either that or they are deliberately lying.
Why don’t you comment on her obvious grammatical errors if, as you claim, the comment is about “the woman [singular] in this article” and her reference to “all these people threatening others”? Let me guess, you’ll just pass that obvious contradiction to what you wrote as “inconsequential”, or what exactly? That comment is obviously directed at a large number of people (plural). Or are you claiming that “all these people” equals “woman in this article”?
No one “call[ed] for an assassin to the president”. It was a question, in a vernacular that is commonly used in a humorous manner. Where are your so-called comprehension skills now? I guess we’ll see if law enforcement takes her statement as a “credible threat” or not. Or do you want to file charges yourself? Are you using the Patriot Act to assert that such statements are “terroristic threats”? I have to wonder if you were so concerned about “nuts” when Bush was being hung and burned in effigy hundreds or thousands of times during his term of office? Let me guess: no, you never said a word about arresting those people who were making threats against the president.
So you think who is “threatening people with guns”? The woman subject of the article never did. The photos show her legally bearing arms and threatening no one. If she had been threatening someone, you can be sure someone of your ilk would have been on 911 reporting it. Protesting a meeting of your opponents is not “stalking”, that’s absurd. Those people were lawfully making their views known on public property and in no way violated any law. Or do advocate for all the people outside the White House and other political venues be jailed for “stalking”? Absurd.
Your response to the assertion that all those people (plural) who are “threatening people [with guns] will eventually use them” is laughable. “Who can say?” Really? That’s the best you can do? Are you serious? You won’t even define who the group is, except that it’s a group (plural) and that it’s a singular person (“the woman in the article”). You’re not willing to take any stand at all about the actual content of the comment you defend. Coward.
WhatReally July 14th, 2014 at 14:06
Your comments are so “all over the board” that I don’t
really know where to begin. But I’ll give it a try.
1. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Manual, “Of the
individuals who come to the Secret Service’s attention as creating a possible danger to one of their protectees, approximately 75 percent are mentally ill.” (section 9-65.140 Publicity Concerning Threats Against Government
Officials). There is some question as to what constitutes a threat, and what does not. Those lines can get very blurry. A lot more has to be taken into consideration. However, it is quite clear that she has come to the Secret Service’s attention, so there is only about a 1 in 4 chance that she is mentally stable, which increases the odds of her doing something foolish. Jerry
Blanchard, Raymond H. Geisel, Khalid Kelly, Mitchell Kusick, are all people who have been arrested strictly because of uttering statements about killing the president, not because of any actions. Paul Schlesselman and Daniel Cowart, Kristy
Lee Roshia, Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, 4 US Army soldiers, including Private First Class Michael Burnett, Glenn Scott Crawford and Eric J. Feight, put their threats into action, which included radiation-emitting devices, stalking, and murdering others who knew about their plot. These are just some of the stories that have been reported, because “The United States Attorney must carefully consider the possible adverse effect before releasing information to the public concerning cases and matters involving threats against the President” (again, section 9-65.140 Publicity Concerning Threats Against Government Officials). Does that answer
your question about the nuts?
2. If you truly believe that the statement “Where is an
assassin when you need one” is humorous, when referring to the president, then I question your mental stability. What is the least bit humorous about killing another person…ANY person?
3. You said “Protesting a meeting of your opponents is
not “stalking”, that’s absurd.” I agree. Where did I ever even
mention that? Please, show me my quote. I think you’re getting your rants confused.
4. As far as the picture of her with the gun over her shoulder, that’s an entirely different argument. I’m not even talking about
that. Again, I believe you must be arguing with somebody else about that, and just got confused.
5. You said “I have to wonder if you were so concerned
about “nuts” when Bush was being hung and burned in effigy hundreds or thousands of times during his term of office? Let me guess: no, you never said a word about arresting those people who were making threats against the president.” As a matter of fact, I was extremely concerned about that. No
matter how I felt about President Bush, nobody deserves to be killed because they disagree with somebody else…about politics, religion, race, sex…ANYTHING. It’s barbaric, and makes us as a nation look pathetic.
6. And, by the way, many people HAVE reported her…not to 911 (local police…really?), but to the FBI and the Secret Service.
Have I cleared everything up for you?
BandernsatchXYZ July 13th, 2014 at 21:25
You seem mad. Let me keep it short and sweet, even though you have plenty of time on your hands. Old cranky bigots all have to die, and with it, their political influence. Your party is running on the fumes of paranoid old kooks.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 03:30
You seem ignorant. Let me keep it short and sweet, even though you won’t even entertain the possibility that you could be making false assumptions. Just tell me, what is my party, and what is my religion. Please be specific rather than couching your charges in words like “party” and “Christian”.
We “paranoid old kook cranky bigots” are awaiting the enlightened revelations of such a wise person as you, who apparently cannot even make disparaging personal name-calling attacks with the slightest bit of accuracy. Tell us something else you don’t know, but think you know.
BandernsatchXYZ July 14th, 2014 at 19:23
Let it sink in. Old people die.
PunaPerson July 14th, 2014 at 23:09
Uh huh. And I guess according to you only people you disagree with will die, while you and your ideologically “superior” elite leftist nanny-staters are all going to happily live forever in your collectivist utopia, right?
Hate to break it to you (not really), but you and yours are all going to die in the same time and way… well unless you get your way fairly soon and end up in a “re-education” gulag.
Frank Singleton July 14th, 2014 at 16:26
You’re right….
Clyde's Stuff July 13th, 2014 at 07:21
I don’t know about changing the second amendment but this woman should not be allowed to raise kids. As far as I’m concerned, raising your kids to follow in your footsteps of imbecility is the worse kind of child abuse.
Clyde's Stuff July 13th, 2014 at 07:21
I don’t know about changing the second amendment but this woman should not be allowed to raise kids. As far as I’m concerned, raising your kids to follow in your footsteps of imbecility is the worse kind of child abuse.