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
NW10 July 13th, 2014 at 08:27
Kathy Perkins and other gunloons like her actually advocate for stricter gun control measures. She is NOT a responsible gun owner, responsible gun owners don’t need to flaunt their guns in public to intimidate and scare the crap out of people. These are the sorts of people who should have their guns taken away from them because they aren’t demonstrating responsible gun ownership.
CherMoe July 13th, 2014 at 10:49
People like Kathy Perkins are not “advocates” for stricter gun control. She displays the NEED for better gun control because the aren’t responsible gun owners, as you’ve said. All the hype about guns and stocking up and the rabid defense of their rights to have assault weapons & arsenals … is because these very same people ARE the nuts who shouldn’t have them.
NW10 July 13th, 2014 at 11:00
Excellent point, I should’ve stated “inadvertently advocated for stricter gun control,” by being living examples of people who shouldn’t have guns because they don’t use them responsibly.
Yeah way July 13th, 2014 at 15:39
So let us get this clear, the actions of a small percentage of gun owners, like this nutty woman and a few other assorted bad apples, should be used as a basis to pass judgement on, and create further draonian laws for, a much larger percentage of gun owners who ARE peaceful, safe and responsible?
Gee, where have I heard this type of logical fallacy before?
Unbelievable.
Republicans_are_Evil July 13th, 2014 at 15:45
Specifically which logical fallacy is this?
Flspeedy July 13th, 2014 at 18:38
Whether it’s “fair” or not to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of the ammosexuals , the reality is that their behavior inevitably WILL be used as a basis for stricter gun measures. That’s why , as a gun owner , I detest these irresponsible imbeciles
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 13th, 2014 at 08:27
Kathy Perkins and other gunloons like her actually advocate for stricter gun control measures. She is NOT a responsible gun owner, responsible gun owners don’t need to flaunt their guns in public to intimidate and scare the crap out of people. These are the sorts of people who should have their guns taken away from them because they aren’t demonstrating responsible gun ownership.
CherMoe July 13th, 2014 at 10:49
People like Kathy Perkins are not “advocates” for stricter gun control. She displays the NEED for better gun control because the aren’t responsible gun owners, as you’ve said. All the hype about guns and stocking up and the rabid defense of their rights to have assault weapons & arsenals … is because these very same people ARE the nuts who shouldn’t have them.
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 13th, 2014 at 11:00
Excellent point, I should’ve stated “inadvertently advocated for stricter gun control,” by being living examples of people who shouldn’t have guns because they don’t use them responsibly.
Yeah way July 13th, 2014 at 15:39
So let us get this clear, the actions of a small percentage of gun owners, like this nutty woman and a few other assorted bad apples, should be used as a basis to pass judgement on, and create further draonian laws for, a much larger percentage of gun owners who ARE peaceful, safe and responsible?
Gee, where have I heard this type of logical fallacy before?
Unbelievable.
Republicans_are_Evil July 13th, 2014 at 15:45
Specifically which logical fallacy is this?
Flspeedy July 13th, 2014 at 18:38
Whether it’s “fair” or not to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of the ammosexuals , the reality is that their behavior inevitably WILL be used as a basis for stricter gun measures. That’s why , as a gun owner , I detest these irresponsible imbeciles
William July 13th, 2014 at 08:44
Right wing gun wacko’s defying logic everyday, then demanding that the world listen to their “logical” arguments about their perceived right to wave guns in people faces and usurp the will of the American voter with armed violence.
William July 13th, 2014 at 08:44
Right wing gun wacko’s defying logic everyday, then demanding that the world listen to their “logical” arguments about their perceived right to wave guns in people faces and usurp the will of the American voter with armed violence.
Dave July 13th, 2014 at 09:26
Shouldn’t this be an article about the 1st amendment? The only thing she is shooting off is her mouth. If you don’t like her words attack her words.
M A G July 13th, 2014 at 09:44
She is attacking her words. She’s pointing out the hypocrisy of this woman saying she just wants to peaceably own guns while calling for the assassination of the POTUS. If you can’t see that both of those statements can’t simultaneously be true, then I can’t help you.
samkatz July 13th, 2014 at 09:46
Seriously? I don’t think that big phallus attached to her arm is just “words.” I think it’s called an assault rifle. Plus, you better check all the restrictions on the First Amendment. Threatening to kill the President, or even claiming to joke abut it, including hate speech, is among them — along with a host of others, including false and deceptively advertising, libel and slander, copyright infringement, broadcast violations, and many, many other restrictions. This notion that everyone has unfettered rights is for the Constitutionally impaired — and apparently you’re one of them!
CherMoe July 13th, 2014 at 10:43
Extremely well said!
notarepublican July 13th, 2014 at 11:50
Not an ASSAULT RIFLE. You could at least try to know what you are talking about before trying to infringe on our inalienable rights. AR stands for the manufacturer. It is a sporting rifle.
If the police find it effective for ‘personal defense’, then it is good for me as well.
NW10 July 13th, 2014 at 12:01
Who honestly cares about what your favorite toys are called?
And “unalienable rights?” NO right in the BOR is without limits, which includes the Second Amendment. Otherwise you can explain to me why I can’t have a nuclear missile silo in my backyard, an Abrams tank in my garage, and predator drones and rocket launchers in my garage.
notarepublican July 13th, 2014 at 12:14
So, sporting rifles are now in the same category as wmd’s? Are you off your medication?!
“Shall not be infringed” and “Keep and bear”
Care to take a stab at defining these phrases? I know kindergarteners that can do it.
The rhetoric is so tired and broken. Please try again.
NW10 July 13th, 2014 at 12:16
Show me where in the Second the word “gun” is mentioned. Looking at it right now, it says “arms.”
“Shall not be infringed.” Read Article 1, Section 8, and tell me what it says about organizing the militia.
King July 13th, 2014 at 12:38
@NOTAREPUBLICAN: It’s time to re-read the 2nd Amendment,. You know, PROPERLY…
http://askingquestionsblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/one-linguists-thoughts-on-second.html
ChrisVosburg July 13th, 2014 at 13:00
Speaking of tired and broken rhetoric, the phrase “inalienable rights” is found in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, and these rights are enumerated therein as being (1)life, (2) liberty and (3)the pursuit of happiness. Guess they forgot to add “waving around an assault rifle like a fool.”
It’s also worth pointing out that in the many states, and countries, that exempt the AR-15 from outright bans, it is considered a “sporting rifle” only in the sense that it could conceivably be used in target shooting, which for reasons defying all understanding of the concept, is thought to be a sport by some people.
Eyvoone July 13th, 2014 at 14:56
Thank you. Keep the guns down and use your brains. Stop waving around an assault rifle like a fool. Time for Americans to put down their guns and reason with their brains. This is what obtains here in Great Britain.
ChrisVosburg July 13th, 2014 at 12:34
notarepublican writes: If the police find it effective for ‘personal defense’, then it is good for me as well.
Thought you said it was a “sporting rifle.”
If we are speaking of Armalite’s original AR-15 design, it was specifically designed for use by the United States Armed Forces.
Several states in the US specifically ban this type of weapon, which they for some reason feel is an “assault rifle,” but you can mow down Bambi with it in most other states.
So rock on with your AR-15 out, tough guy.
Dwendt44 July 13th, 2014 at 14:42
At least half a dozen companies make AR-15’s, and they are not calling theirs ‘Armalite’.
ChrisVosburg July 13th, 2014 at 15:03
Dwendt44 writes: At least half a dozen companies make AR-15’s, and they are not calling theirs ‘Armalite’.
That’s because they are not ArmaLite, Inc., the company that, as I said, is the originator of the weapon. Incidentally, ArmaLite sold the design to Colt, which still holds the trade mark of “AR-15.”
As you say, there plenty of variants on the design, and they are often loosely referred to as “AR-15 type” or “built on the AR-15 platform.”
Gun nuts can read all about it, as they softly stroke their muzzles, at the Wikipedia entry (which is what I did, only without all the muzzle-stroking).
Yeah way July 13th, 2014 at 15:24
There is so much FAIL in your vitriolic post, one hardly knows where to start. Let’s keep it pithy:
1) AR-15 = Not an assault rifle. Period. The military version, once adapted, of the ORIGINAL AR-15 design, complete with select fire, was known (and IS known) as an M16A1. That is very unlikely to be what she is holding.
2) It is a sporting rifle. And it can also be used for defensive purposes, as has been pointed out, it’s good enough or police forces…truth is, even those target rifles used in the Olympics could be used to defend oneself against a murderous home invader. So?
My Land Rover can also be used to get groceries…perhaps you should think of the AR as a “sport utility” rifle?
3) “”but you can mow down Bambi with (an AR-15) in most other states.””
Please do not try this. The AR-15, chambered in .223, is not an adequate firearm for “Bambi”, even though Bambi was a relatively small roe deer. I can’t be arsed to Google it, but I doubt that many states allow “big game” hunting with the .223. Only one Canadian province does, and that only for tiny mule deer. Either way, this medium cartridge won’t be “mowing down” any significant game any time soon. It is, of course a lethal round (as is any gunpowder-propelled bullet), but its history describes its design as being “easier to carry more of” and “useful to wound the enemy, rather than kill him, therefore requiring the attention of other soldiers to carry him off the battlefield…”
For anything larger than a boar or coyote, you would be better advised to run an AR-10, chambered in .308., or a BAR, like my grandpa’s old moose rifle. It is FAR more powerful than the AR-15.
4) “”Several states in the US specifically ban this type of weapon, which they for some reason feel is an “assault rifle,”
The “reason” is, they are purposely misusing the English language to meet their own ends. The anti-gun lawmakers that do this, do it to evoke emotions, hysteria and fear from people, like yourself, who have….um….not yet learned much about firearms. If it does not have full auto capability, it is not an assault rifle. Period. even if folks really really REALLY want it to be one.
And so, caught in a lie, anti-gun folk have created the neologism: “assault weapon”. Since they made up the term, no-one can say they are mistaken, lol.
They remind me of the anti-choice right wingers that made up “partial birth abortion” when they know darned well that there is no such medical term. Both of you groups, the anti-abortion folks and the anti-gun folks, resort to this type of nonsense.
How embarrassing to see liberals stoop to the same level of hyperbole, and, frankly, dishonesty.
What happened to the left’s love of truth, science and honesty?
William July 14th, 2014 at 00:49
I can assure you that here in the state of Maine (we have some pretty big deer) the 223 AKA 5.56 NATO is completely legal and very effective for shooting deer.
FVS July 14th, 2014 at 15:07
Wrong! The M-16 was originally designed for military use. It is a FULL AUTO weapon that has a selector switch that allows for single shot, 3 round burst of full auto. The AR-15 is semi auto single shot only. No different in function than dozens of other semi-auto long guns. The difference being that uninformed liberals think it’s “scary looking” and that means its an assault weapon.
ChrisVosburg July 14th, 2014 at 15:26
FVS splutters: Wrong! The M-16 was originally designed for military use.
FVS, a bit downthread, you’ll find that I linked to the wikipedia entry for the AR-15 which contains the following [my bold]:
“The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a small arms rifle for the United States armed forces.”
Like. I. Said.
The entry goes on to describe the sale to Colt and subsequent redesign as the M16 [again, my bold]:
“Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. After modifications (most notably the relocation of the charging handle from under the carrying handle like the AR-10 to the rear of the receiver), the new redesigned rifle was subsequently adopted as the M16.”
No use prevaricating about the bush, FVS. I bring the troo fax, you do not bring the troo fax. If you’ll accept a bit of unsolicited advice, you can avoid looking foolish by reading the comments first.
Anomaly 100 July 13th, 2014 at 11:34
That’s right, Sparky! Let’s wait until she actually assassinates the President before we do something!
Anomaly 100 July 13th, 2014 at 11:34
That’s right, Sparky! Let’s wait until she actually assassinates the President before we do something!
FVS July 14th, 2014 at 14:57
Actually here comment was structured as a speculative question, not as an overt threat. Apparently she is not as dumb as some might think. But don’t worry the DoJ is all over the guy who put an outhouse in an Independence Day parade and labeled it “Obama Presidential Library.
Anomaly 100 July 14th, 2014 at 15:11
You’re kind of an idiot. Please proceed….
FVS July 14th, 2014 at 16:13
And you’re apparently incapable of responding to others with anything but derision or innuendo. Last I time anyone looked that’s not debate. That’s what is expected of school children…….
and liberals.
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.
FVS July 14th, 2014 at 19:48
You do know you’re not being rational right? Go ahead and delete what you want. That’s what fascists do. Please look up the meaning of a speculative question……
For the most part all the innuendo and name calling comes from the left. In fact it is frequently the first and only reaction. I’ve seen very few who are capable or willing to construct a counter point argument, you included.
I know you would prefer this to be a big happy mutual admiration society. but that benefits no one. Unless of course being able to say to yourself “Gee I don’t know anybody who disagrees with me.” is some sort of self affirmation.
When you get your MD or PhD in psychology that qualifies you to judge the sanity of others let us know. But then that’s what fascists/ communists do; declare your opponents crazy and put them away to shut them up. Read some history, you’re following the pattern. You have your delete button, Stalin and Hitler had their airbrush.
As far as my attitude toward Obama is concerned it has to do with his destructive incompetence and arrogance and nothing else.
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.
FVS July 14th, 2014 at 20:49
Sorry but I have an MA in History and have studied the structure, origins and methods of fascists and fascism for over 40 years. My judgment of Obama comes from that study and experience. Suffice it to say I know a fascist when I see one. I judge the tree by it’s fruit.
I’d challenge you or anyone on the board to debate the fact that the differences between fascism and communism are differences without distinctions. But I have yet to find a leftist who can even discuss it with out sinking into ad hominem and innuendo.
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.
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.
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.
FVS July 14th, 2014 at 21:04
Maybe if you don’t like being called a fascist you should stop behaving like one. How is it an insult to judge a tree by its fruit? So go ahead ban me, delete my posts, prove my point. Or engage in honest debate. You know, point, counterpoint, argument, counter argument. Delineation of supporting facts and statistics.
If you want to deflate my arrogance, prove my contentions about fascism wrong. But pardon me if I don’t hold my breath waiting for you to grow up and act like an adult.
FVS July 14th, 2014 at 19:48
You do know you’re not being rational right? Go ahead and delete what you want. That’s what fascists do. Please look up the meaning of a speculative question……
For the most part all the innuendo and name calling comes from the left. In fact it is frequently the first and only reaction. I’ve seen very few who are capable or willing to construct a counter point argument, you included.
I know you would prefer this to be a big happy mutual admiration society. but that benefits no one. Unless of course being able to say to yourself “Gee I don’t know anybody who disagrees with me.” is some sort of self affirmation.
When you get your MD or PhD in psychology that qualifies you to judge the sanity of others let us know. But then that’s what fascists/ communists do; declare your opponents crazy and put them away to shut them up. Read some history, you’re following the pattern. You have your delete button, Stalin and Hitler had their airbrush.
As far as my attitude toward Obama is concerned it has to do with his destructive incompetence and arrogance and nothing else.
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, harass others, call us Facists, and offer absolutely nothing to the conversation.
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.
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.
Jeffrey Samuels July 13th, 2014 at 11:37
ever try saying the word hijack on an airplane or fire in a theater. There are some things responsible people just don’t do. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
yeah way July 13th, 2014 at 14:54
Although I do no necessarily agree with the lead subject of the article, I find the ‘fire” analogy to be a tired old cliché.
People use it more and more to try to justify limitations on civil rights. There’s one problem with this tired old tactic: it’s only a crime to yell “fire”…
…if there IS no fire.
I do not defend this woman, or her crazy-sounding statements, but I have no doubt that she believes what she says to be true.
If you want a 1st amendment analogy to the 2nd, here’s a much more adroit one: “If the 2nd is about only muskets, the 1st must only regard pamphleteers and ye olde towne crier…” – John David Peer
JMax July 13th, 2014 at 22:08
The Second Amendment isn’t about muskets. It’s about well-regulated militias.
FVS July 14th, 2014 at 14:52
1st. In the context of 18th century when it was written “well regulated” means that the militia was trained, skilled and functioned as intended.
2nd. Courts of the time defined the militia as all eligible males over the age of 18 who freely chose to serve.
3rd. No court has ever ruled that the second clause of the 2nd amendment was either subordinate or dependent on the first clause. No amount of wishing or posturing will make it so.
Jeffrey Samuels July 13th, 2014 at 11:37
ever try saying the word hijack on an airplane or fire in a theater. There are some things responsible people just don’t do. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
Gordon Young July 13th, 2014 at 18:56
How understanding,where did you learn logic?
Dave July 13th, 2014 at 09:26
Shouldn’t this be an article about the 1st amendment? The only thing she is shooting off is her mouth. If you don’t like her words attack her words.
MIAtheistGal July 13th, 2014 at 09:44
She is attacking her words. She’s pointing out the hypocrisy of this woman saying she just wants to peaceably own guns while calling for the assassination of the POTUS. If you can’t see that both of those statements can’t simultaneously be true, then I can’t help you.
samkatz July 13th, 2014 at 09:46
Seriously? I don’t think that big phallus attached to her arm is just “words.” I think it’s called an assault rifle. Plus, you better check all the restrictions on the First Amendment. Threatening to kill the President, or even claiming to joke abut it, including hate speech, is among them — along with a host of others, including false and deceptively advertising, libel and slander, copyright infringement, broadcast violations, and many, many other restrictions. This notion that everyone has unfettered rights is for the Constitutionally impaired — and apparently you’re one of them!
CherMoe July 13th, 2014 at 10:43
Extremely well said!
notarepublican July 13th, 2014 at 11:50
Not an ASSAULT RIFLE. You could at least try to know what you are talking about before trying to infringe on our inalienable rights. AR stands for the manufacturer. It is a sporting rifle.
If the police find it effective for ‘personal defense’, then it is good for me as well.
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 13th, 2014 at 12:01
Who honestly cares about what your favorite toys are called?
And “unalienable rights?” NO right in the BOR is without limits, which includes the Second Amendment. Otherwise you can explain to me why I can’t have a nuclear missile silo in my backyard, an Abrams tank in my driveway, and predator drones and rocket launchers in my garage.
notarepublican July 13th, 2014 at 12:14
So, sporting rifles are now in the same category as wmd’s? Are you off your medication?!
“Shall not be infringed” and “Keep and bear”
Care to take a stab at defining these phrases? I know kindergarteners that can do it.
The rhetoric is so tired and broken. Please try again.
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 13th, 2014 at 12:16
Show me where in the Second the word “gun” is mentioned. Looking at it right now, it says “arms.”
“Shall not be infringed.” Read Article 1, Section 8, and tell me what it says about organizing the militia.
King July 13th, 2014 at 12:38
@NOTAREPUBLICAN: It’s time to re-read the 2nd Amendment,. You know, PROPERLY…
http://askingquestionsblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/one-linguists-thoughts-on-second.html
ChrisVosburg July 13th, 2014 at 13:00
Speaking of tired and broken rhetoric, the phrase “inalienable rights” is found in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, and these rights are enumerated therein as being (1)life, (2) liberty and (3)the pursuit of happiness. Guess they forgot to add “waving around an assault rifle like a fool.”
It’s also worth pointing out that in the many states, and countries, that exempt the AR-15 from outright bans, it is considered a “sporting rifle” only in the sense that it could conceivably be used in target shooting, which for reasons defying all understanding of the concept, is thought to be a sport by some people.
Eyvoone July 13th, 2014 at 14:56
Thank you. Keep the guns down and use your brains. Stop waving around an assault rifle like a fool. Time for Americans to put down their guns and reason with their brains. This is what obtains here in Great Britain.
ChrisVosburg July 13th, 2014 at 12:34
notarepublican writes: If the police find it effective for ‘personal defense’, then it is good for me as well.
Thought you said it was a “sporting rifle.”
If we are speaking of Armalite’s original AR-15 design, it was specifically designed for use by the United States Armed Forces.
Several states in the US specifically ban this type of weapon, which they for some reason feel is an “assault rifle,” but you can mow down Bambi with it in most other states.
So rock on with your AR-15 out, tough guy.
Dwendt44 July 13th, 2014 at 14:42
At least half a dozen companies make AR-15’s, and they are not calling theirs ‘Armalite’.
ChrisVosburg July 13th, 2014 at 15:03
Dwendt44 writes: At least half a dozen companies make AR-15’s, and they are not calling theirs ‘Armalite’.
That’s because they are not ArmaLite, Inc., the company that, as I said, is the originator of the weapon, and the name it gave to it. Incidentally, ArmaLite sold the design to Colt, which still holds the trade mark of “AR-15.”
As you say, there plenty of variants on the design, and they are often loosely referred to as “AR-15 type” or “built on the AR-15 platform.”
Gun nuts can read all about it, as they softly stroke their muzzles, at the Wikipedia entry (which is what I did, only without all the muzzle-stroking).
Yeah way July 13th, 2014 at 15:24
There is so much FAIL in your vitriolic post, one hardly knows where to start. Let’s keep it pithy:
1) AR-15 = Not an assault rifle. Period. The military version, once adapted, of the ORIGINAL AR-15 design, complete with select fire, was known (and IS known) as an M16A1. That is very unlikely to be what she is holding.
2) It is a sporting rifle. And it can also be used for defensive purposes, as has been pointed out, it’s good enough or police forces…truth is, even those target rifles used in the Olympics could be used to defend oneself against a murderous home invader. So?
My Land Rover can also be used to get groceries…perhaps you should think of the AR as a “sport utility” rifle?
3) “”but you can mow down Bambi with (an AR-15) in most other states.””
Please do not try this. The AR-15, chambered in .223, is not an adequate firearm for “Bambi”, even though Bambi was a relatively small roe deer. I can’t be arsed to Google it, but I doubt that many states allow “big game” hunting with the .223. Only one Canadian province does, and that only for tiny mule deer. Either way, this medium cartridge won’t be “mowing down” any significant game any time soon. It is, of course a lethal round (as is any gunpowder-propelled bullet), but its history describes its design as being “easier to carry more of” and “useful to wound the enemy, rather than kill him, therefore requiring the attention of other soldiers to carry him off the battlefield…”
For anything larger than a boar or coyote, you would be better advised to run an AR-10, chambered in .308., or a BAR, like my grandpa’s old moose rifle. It is FAR more powerful than the AR-15.
4) “”Several states in the US specifically ban this type of weapon, which they for some reason feel is an “assault rifle,”
The “reason” is, they are purposely misusing the English language to meet their own ends. The anti-gun lawmakers that do this, do it to evoke emotions, hysteria and fear from people, like yourself, who have….um….not yet learned much about firearms. If it does not have full auto capability, it is not an assault rifle. Period. even if folks really really REALLY want it to be one.
And so, caught in a lie, anti-gun folk have created the neologism: “assault weapon”. Since they made up the term, no-one can say they are mistaken, lol.
They remind me of the anti-choice right wingers that made up “partial birth abortion” when they know darned well that there is no such medical term. Both of you groups, the anti-abortion folks and the anti-gun folks, resort to this type of nonsense.
How embarrassing to see liberals stoop to the same level of hyperbole, and, frankly, dishonesty.
What happened to the left’s love of truth, science and honesty?
ChrisVosburg July 13th, 2014 at 15:46
You call that pithy?
You know, Way, there’s something almost endearing about the way gun lovers crap on and on about the minutiae of nomenclature, or busily comparing relative efficacy of calibers and models for a given purpose, none of which anyone really gives a shit about.
It’s almost like a little girl lining up all her dollies on a shelf and then pinning name tags on ’em, gaily calling out their names as she goes.
William July 14th, 2014 at 00:49
I can assure you that here in the state of Maine (we have some pretty big deer) the 223 AKA 5.56 NATO is completely legal and very effective for shooting deer.
ChrisVosburg July 14th, 2014 at 15:26
FVS splutters: Wrong! The M-16 was originally designed for military use.
FVS, a bit downthread, you’ll find that I linked to the wikipedia entry for the AR-15 which contains the following [my bold]:
“The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a small arms rifle for the United States armed forces.”
Like. I. Said.
The entry goes on to describe the sale to Colt and subsequent redesign as the M16 [again, my bold]:
“Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. After modifications (most notably the relocation of the charging handle from under the carrying handle like the AR-10 to the rear of the receiver), the new redesigned rifle was subsequently adopted as the M16.”
No use prevaricating about the bush, FVS. I bring the troo fax, you do not bring the troo fax. If you’ll accept a bit of unsolicited advice, you can avoid looking foolish by reading the comments first.
Anomaly 100 July 13th, 2014 at 11:34
That’s right, Sparky! Let’s wait until she actually assassinates the President before we do something!
Anomaly 100 July 14th, 2014 at 15:11
You’re kind of an idiot. Please proceed….
junesxing July 13th, 2014 at 11:37
ever try saying the word hijack on an airplane or fire in a theater. There are some things responsible people just don’t do. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
yeah way July 13th, 2014 at 14:54
Although I do no necessarily agree with the lead subject of the article, I find the ‘fire” analogy to be a tired old cliché.
People use it more and more to try to justify limitations on civil rights. There’s one problem with this tired old tactic: it’s only a crime to yell “fire”…
…if there IS no fire.
I do not defend this woman, or her crazy-sounding statements, but I have no doubt that she believes what she says to be true.
If you want a 1st amendment analogy to the 2nd, here’s a much more adroit one: “If the 2nd is about only muskets, the 1st must only regard pamphleteers and ye olde towne crier…” – John David Peer
JMax July 13th, 2014 at 22:08
The Second Amendment isn’t about muskets. It’s about well-regulated militias.
Gordon Young July 13th, 2014 at 18:56
How understanding,where did you learn logic?
RepublicansSUCKS July 13th, 2014 at 10:16
PLEASE someone on twitter send this to the FBI and the Secret Service and fuck anyone using and abusing the predictable Right Wing domestic TERRORISTS of “Free Speech” and this bitch better realize that there is no amount of Ammo that will help her and her fellow racist goons IF anything were to happen to Barack Obama
Anomaly 100 July 13th, 2014 at 11:33
Dallas FBI has a twitter account.
donschneider July 13th, 2014 at 10:17
Is there a REAL connection between the treasonous group “Mom’s with guns”, and The Girl Scouts of America ? Or is it just the “Girl Scouts of Texas” that are affiliated ?
Bob Smetters July 13th, 2014 at 10:33
Good question. A lot of parents should be interested to know if this group is connected to the Girl Scouts.
donschneider July 13th, 2014 at 10:17
Is there a REAL connection between the treasonous group “Mom’s with guns”, and The Girl Scouts of America ? Or is it just the “Girl Scouts of Texas” that are affiliated ?
Bob Smetters July 13th, 2014 at 10:33
Good question. A lot of parents should be interested to know if this group is connected to the Girl Scouts.
MaryJane Mccarthy James July 13th, 2014 at 10:44
This ignorant ugly troll needs a visit by the fed’s.These scum think they can say whatever they like.
MaryJane Mccarthy James July 13th, 2014 at 10:44
This ignorant ugly troll needs a visit by the fed’s.These scum think they can say whatever they like.
Anomaly 100 July 13th, 2014 at 11:33
Dallas FBI has a twitter account.
Anomaly 100 July 13th, 2014 at 11:33
Dallas FBI has a twitter account.
granpa.usthai July 13th, 2014 at 11:56
First pic -whose out of touch?
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE having a BBQ Lunch SEEM TO ENJOY BEING WITH THEIR PRESIDENT!
Last pic – ‘this is fact?’
ARE ALL THESE MASS SHOOTINGS BEING DONE BY “PATRIOTS” BECAUSE THEY “LOVE” THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEY ARE KILLING?!?
NW10 July 13th, 2014 at 12:03
Argument from personal incredulity.
grayjohn July 16th, 2014 at 07:09
All the mass shootings have been committed by registered democrats,
Carla Akins July 16th, 2014 at 07:50
Source please.
grayjohn July 17th, 2014 at 06:40
Reality.
Carla Akins July 17th, 2014 at 07:02
Get a grip.Did you even see or read the deleted comment I was responding to? I you wish to make an outrageous claim, and state it as fact, you’d better be prepared to back it up ir you have no credibility.
grayjohn July 19th, 2014 at 07:01
How could I read it if it was deleted?
Carla Akins July 19th, 2014 at 10:45
that was my point.
grayjohn July 19th, 2014 at 17:38
Um, ok.
granpa.usthai July 13th, 2014 at 11:56
First pic -whose out of touch?
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE having a BBQ Lunch SEEM TO ENJOY BEING WITH THEIR PRESIDENT!
Last pic – ‘this is fact?’
ARE ALL THESE MASS SHOOTINGS BEING DONE BY “PATRIOTS” BECAUSE THEY “LOVE” THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEY ARE KILLING?!?
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 13th, 2014 at 12:03
.
Carla Akins July 16th, 2014 at 07:50
Source please.
grayjohn July 17th, 2014 at 06:40
Reality.
Carla Akins July 17th, 2014 at 07:02
Get a grip.Did you even see or read the deleted comment I was responding to? I you wish to make an outrageous claim, and state it as fact, you’d better be prepared to back it up ir you have no credibility.
grayjohn July 19th, 2014 at 07:01
How could I read it if it was deleted?
Carla Akins July 19th, 2014 at 10:45
that was my point.
grayjohn July 19th, 2014 at 17:38
Um, ok. Too bad it was deleted. Oh well.
James Knauer July 13th, 2014 at 12:02
““An armed society is a safe society”
Insanity is as insanity does.
PhatGramPhil July 13th, 2014 at 12:02
““An armed society is a safe society”
Insanity is as insanity does.
jakee308 July 13th, 2014 at 15:19
Reading the comments here is amusing. An example of mass amnesia.
Apparently none of you all remember the death threats that were made against Bush.
None of you can even remember more recent death threats by so called Progressives towards those they disagree with. Or threats of violent rape.
Progressives have a very selective memory. But then those who are mentally ill usually have trouble remembering or relating to reality or the facts of their past misdeeds.
Republicans_are_Evil July 13th, 2014 at 15:44
You are not God. You have no idea what people here remember or fail to remember. Shame on you for your sin against God.
You also bear false witness against every progressive, which is more sin than all the abortions combined. It shows a lack of basic ethics, and may indicate a sociopathic mind. How ironic of you to accuse progressives of being mentally ill.
Anomaly 100 July 13th, 2014 at 17:52
He’s a dunderhead. If he’s God, I’m going atheist.
BandernsatchXYZ July 13th, 2014 at 21:13
The kid is too self conscious to argue any further, he knows that he is at best, a troll, and he is under the impression that everyone else is as gullible as himself.
FVS July 14th, 2014 at 01:21
This coming from someone who calls himself Republicans are evil. You either think yourself amusing or you have no sense of irony.
ChrisVosburg July 13th, 2014 at 15:48
Jakee writes: Apparently none of you all remember the death threats that were made against Bush.
Sure we do. Uh, you have some sort of point here, or is that it?
Anomaly 100 July 13th, 2014 at 17:51
You’re sweet. The readers here would be the first to condemn threats to a Republican or a Democrat. FFS, one of our Conservative readers and I have been trolling a democratic candidate for days just because he’s a jerk. So do not suggest that our readers would ever condone such an action.
Meanwhile, you’re justifying this seditious woman’s threats. Congrats! Youre so special.
NW10 July 13th, 2014 at 18:39
Just a suggestion: trolling Dems is just as bad as right wingers trolling Dems, it depresses turnout and ultimately backfires.
Anomaly 100 July 13th, 2014 at 21:37
Not in this case. He’s a candidate that can’t win anyway and he’s too far out there, for any of us to support.
NW10 July 13th, 2014 at 18:38
Two wrongs make a right (wing).
Noreen Bradshaw Donlon July 13th, 2014 at 19:40
Give a specific example of the leader of a progressive group who who aimed death threats at Bush? What progressive threatened to “rape” someone? I am not saying a progressive never made foolish threats. I am saying when someone does we progressives usually call them out on it! Don’t any of you right wingers have the moral backbone to do the same?
stanleyyelnatsDotCom July 13th, 2014 at 20:57
someone threw a shoe at him is all I remember. help me out here…..
cecilia July 13th, 2014 at 21:57
I remember Kennedy’s assassination like it was 5 minutes ago. I was sitting in a classroom and they put the news over the PA.
I remember seeing Oswald being shot by Ruby on TV. It was incredibly shocking.
And nothing gets solved by killing
not a damn thing.
Maybe YOU take this sort of thing lightly but I never have. Those images of Kennedy, his brother, MLK, Malcolm X, etc being killed will never leave me.
only idiots think murder solves problems
FVS July 14th, 2014 at 00:59
“Nothing gets solved by killing”. Really? How then did we become an independent nation? How was the end of slavery brought about? How was the Nazi occupation of Europe and the Japanese occupation of much of Asia and the Pacific brought to an end?
cecilia July 14th, 2014 at 16:22
The Founding Fathers didn’t go around committing murder. They spent a great deal of time and thought devising the Declaration of Independence…..and were forced to push the British out.
And the Civil war happened because scumbags care more about money than human beings. It could have been avoided if people sat down and talked things out.
The World Wars are nothing to be proud of. The Great War began for no good reason and WWll was just a continuation because people got butt hurt during the 1st war.
and all the wars after that were nothing but stupidity magnified. “Nam was dumber than dumb.
They are all a huge waste of time and resources.
jakee308 July 13th, 2014 at 15:19
Reading the comments here is amusing. An example of mass amnesia.
Apparently none of you all remember the death threats that were made against Bush.
None of you can even remember more recent death threats by so called Progressives towards those they disagree with. Or threats of violent rape.
Progressives have a very selective memory. But then those who are mentally ill usually have trouble remembering or relating to reality or the facts of their past misdeeds.
Republicans_are_Evil July 13th, 2014 at 15:44
You are not God. You have no idea what people here remember or fail to remember. Shame on you for your sin against God.
You also bear false witness against every progressive, which is more sin than all the abortions combined. It shows a lack of basic ethics, and may indicate a sociopathic mind. How ironic of you to accuse progressives of being mentally ill.
Anomaly 100 July 13th, 2014 at 17:52
He’s a dunderhead. If he’s God, I’m going atheist.
BandernsatchXYZ July 13th, 2014 at 21:13
The kid is too self conscious to argue any further, he knows that he is at best, a troll, and he is under the impression that everyone else is as gullible as himself.
ChrisVosburg July 13th, 2014 at 15:48
Jakee writes: Apparently none of you all remember the death threats that were made against Bush.
Sure we do. Uh, you have some sort of point here, or is that it?
Anomaly 100 July 13th, 2014 at 17:51
You’re sweet. The readers here would be the first to condemn threats to a Republican or a Democrat. FFS, one of our Conservative readers and I have been trolling a democratic candidate for days just because he’s a jerk. So do not suggest that our readers would ever condone such an action.
Meanwhile, you’re justifying this seditious woman’s threats. Congrats! Youre so special.
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 13th, 2014 at 18:39
Just a suggestion: trolling Dems is just as bad as right wingers trolling Dems, it depresses turnout and ultimately backfires.
Anomaly 100 July 13th, 2014 at 21:37
Not in this case. He’s a candidate that can’t win anyway and he’s too far out there, for any of us to support.
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 13th, 2014 at 18:38
Two wrongs make a right (wing).
Noreen Bradshaw Donlon July 13th, 2014 at 19:40
Give a specific example of the leader of a progressive group who who aimed death threats at Bush? What progressive threatened to “rape” someone? I am not saying a progressive never made foolish threats. I am saying when someone does we progressives usually call them out on it! Don’t any of you right wingers have the moral backbone to do the same?
stanleyyelnatsDotCom July 13th, 2014 at 20:57
someone threw a shoe at him is all I remember. help me out here…..
cecilia July 13th, 2014 at 21:57
I remember Kennedy’s assassination like it was 5 minutes ago. I was sitting in a classroom and they put the news over the PA.
I remember seeing Oswald being shot by Ruby on TV. It was incredibly shocking.
And nothing gets solved by killing
not a damn thing.
Maybe YOU take this sort of thing lightly but I never have. Those images of Kennedy, his brother, MLK, Malcolm X, etc being killed will never leave me.
only idiots think murder solves problems
cecilia July 14th, 2014 at 16:22
The Founding Fathers didn’t go around committing murder. They spent a great deal of time and thought devising the Declaration of Independence…..and were forced to push the British out.
And the Civil war happened because scumbags care more about money than human beings. It could have been avoided if people sat down and talked things out.
The World Wars are nothing to be proud of. The Great War began for no good reason and WWll was just a continuation because people got butt hurt during the 1st war.
and all the wars after that were nothing but stupidity magnified. “Nam was dumber than dumb.
They are all a huge waste of time and resources.
fratdawgg23 July 13th, 2014 at 16:04
Maybe the Girl Scouts can start earning a badge in Ballistic Trauma – Bullet Wound First Aid.
Republicans_are_Evil July 13th, 2014 at 16:08
Lol. What a great idea. I smell a SNL skit.