"Open-carry advocate Charles Branstrom (center) of Appleton talks with Bill Polster (right) of Sheboygan Falls while carrying their weapons Saturday, September 21, 2013, at the Downtown Appleton Farm Market." Ron Page/Post-Crescent Media

“If these idiots are this paranoid perhaps they should stay home and protect their fortress and not wander around on the streets. I do not want to live like this where people feel they have to carry guns to protect themselves at a public and/or family event.” Mary Rutten, Appleton, WI, quoted in Gun-carrying incident in Appleton draws responses [via postcrescent.com]

99 Responses to Quote of the Day: Fortress America Edition

    • There you only have to worry about being attacked for violating shria law by Muslim hoodlums. A Florida tourist got jumped by some of them recently and got really messed up. That shit would never happen in the US.

    • The really disgusting thing is page 2 of that article has Penny B.S. hoping to expand on the gun free zone law around local schools, not for the children… But for the comfort of people going to the farmers market not wanting to see openly carried rifles.

    • Correct! Because I have ascertained using my new Liberal debating tactics from The Anonymous Conservative (http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/touching-the-raw-amygdala-an-analysis-of-liberal-debate-tactics-preface/) over the past few weeks, women for gun control (most of them are feminists and liberals, great combo) see things thusly:

      1. Men (implying: aggression, masculine competitiveness, etc) = Bad
      2. Guns (implying: men personified as a hand-hand tool) = Bad
      3. Police (i.e. Men with guns) = Good

      Try to get them to reconcile these diametrically opposed concepts. They can’t do it.

      • As long as the police put their jackboots on the necks of Americans rather than ruling Progressives (as is the tendency now), they are “good.” Just like war is always wrong when the great “imperialist oppressor” America is involved, but it’s noble when heroic leftist “freedom fighters” are involved. It’s not contradictory when you remember that “the issue is never the issue; the issue is always the revolution.” If it undermines American values or promotes leftist values, it’s good. If it promotes American values or paints an honest picture of leftist values, it’s bad. This guy breaks it down as well as anyone I’ve seen on this topic.

      • @ Mina

        The whole point that it’s not a general fear of others but rather a symbolic expression of concern about government overreach and suppression of our (meaning all citizen’s) basic rights and constitutionally mandated protections goes right over the heads of these antis and hoplophobes.

        It’s like we speak two completely different languages, which we do, and there is no bridge between them; none!

        That only leaves short circuiting the anti’s mind-think process and exposing their lies and propaganda for what it truly is; emotional, illogical fear by the followers and a social engineering power grab by the political leaders.

        The followers mindset will not be altered without a change in the anti gun propaganda. The Politicians won’t be persuaded to change unless it starts to cost them way too much political capital to continue to pursue gun confiscation, or they are replaced by others with more realistic goals vis-a-vis gun policy.

        • “it’s not a general fear of others” – oh, but it is. Very much so. Liberals, lefties and women are all very fearful of “others” and it just so happens that they agenda of everyone feeling safe is on the minds of everyone from the media to the Government, etc.

          You guys all do a great job analyzing your little corner of the planet (i.e. gun rights supporters vs. the anti gun crowd) but your fight would be a lot more efficient and productive if you put it into the context of the much bigger picture.

          That’s how we will win. But it won’t just be winning “gun rights” – it will be pushing back Feminism, and forwarding the agenda of the Libertarians and restoring liberty to individuals among other things that will have to win, too.

  1. Mary had a little lamb. Until the wolf raped and butchered it. The lamb died knowing that Mary cared not enough for it to tool up and kick the wolf’s a@s. My lambs will always know they’re loved enough to fight and die for. Certainly enough to kill for.

    • Don’t you know that women have a RIGHT to “Feel Safe” ????

      Not sure where this right came from or who communicated it to them but surely this is TRUE.

      “Just try walking down the street at night to see how male-dominated the world is. Rapists are behind every bush.”

      But, you know, God forbid these women actually take any responsibility and learn how to defend themselves. Much better to expect the men (because the set of all men on teh planet is contained in the set of men who would be “rapists”) to take on the responsibility for not raping them so they can feel safe.

      After they have told you all of this, ask them if Women should be empowered. Then ask: Except to be empowered enough protect themselves when walking alone at night, right?

        • You miss the point. I am on your side, I am trying to illustrate how they think.

          The point is that women want to feel safe … and they want to do it not by facing their fear of guns and aggression and competition but by taking the rights of others to bear arms away.

          They do not want to take responsibilty to defend themselves but instead put the responsibiity on criminals to not prey on them so that they can feel safe. Big difference!!

  2. After the Navy Yard (gun free zone) and Westgate Mall in Nairobi I take extra precautions, e.g., at least two extra magazines, when I go out in public places and I am happy that people like her do not. In the unlikely case that some nut job or terrorist visits Tysons Corner Mall there will be plenty of people like her who will be hapless victims and give me a better chance to make it out alive.

    FYI, the “code of conduct” prohibiting firearms at most malls are not generally valid because the signs are not posted at every entrance. For years I heard about the prohibition at Tysons and other Northern Virginia Malls but never saw a sign because I went in through store entrances where signs are not posted. I actually had to seek out a non-store entrance to find it. If I am ever ided as a carrier I will just tell them I didn’t see a sign at the entrance where I came in. At that point all they can do is to inform me of the no guns policy and as me to leave.

    • Even if you did go through a marked entrance all they can do is ask you to leave. If you don’t, then it’s trespassing. That is not a prohibited location.

  3. And here we come to a crucial divide.

    The hoplophobe opposes forearms because it violates their sense of emotional equanimity-“OMG ,a gun owner can KILL ME!!!moar laws!!!!”-so they project that unto us by saying we carry guns out of a similar emotional issue.

    Hence the accusations of paranoia.

    • Forearms… Autocorrect strikes again. 🙂

      The right to keep and bare (fore)arms shall not be infringed. Even in winter.

    • Stamping out aggressiveness and masculinity is very important. Guns are visible evidence of aggressiveness and masculinity. Therefore guns must be banned.

      It is the r selecteds attempt to limit the ability of the K selected to behave as individuals and importantly, to be able to out-compete people without guns for resources and protection of assets.
      http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/

      r’s don’t care of some of them are killed in their passivity. They can always breed more. Meanwhile K’s prefer to invest in themselves, their families, their offspring and communities and would rather protect them than sacrifice them.

      • Thanks for the link, Mina. Very interesting idea. Still trying it on for size, but this guy’s hypothesis fits the facts pretty well.

        • The more I read it and more importantly practice the concepts by debating Liberals on various topics the more I become convinced that he is right on target.

          I have found a lot of corraborating evidence on Main Stream type physch sites that talk about Amygdala hijack … it seems to be a pretty well known thing.

          The r selection / K selection evolutionary psychology I don’t quite get as much yet but again I have found other “conservative” types who are also making the connection.

          So as crazy as it all sounded at first, it seems to be bearing fruit quite nicely. Now to fit the concepts into fighting gun control!!!

  4. “I do not want to live like this where people feel they have to carry guns to protect themselves at a public and/or family event.”

    I don’t either lady, but the reality is that there are others out there who do carry guns specifically to cause harm. Good luck using your rape whistle.

    • After reading article on talking to anti-gun people, I think it would be a good idea to carry a few rape whistles. You could give it to them for there wife or daughter and say “here. Now your daughter will be protected when a 200+ lb predictor kidnaps her, ties her up in his sound proof basement, and plays with her for the rest of her now short life.” Gives them something to think about. Then again that my be a little over the top.

      • Just keep in mind that deep down they actually feel it is OK to sacrifice their own in the pursuit of the cause to drive out competitiveness and aggressiveness.

        At the end of the day, they can always make more.

      • ” Gives them something to think about.”
        See, now you’re forcing them to think. They won’t do it. Just because you said to…

  5. When I first started seeing open-carry actions (via Youtube, news, etc.) I was very uncomfortable – it seemed like consciously kicking the hornet’s nest, which rarely ends well for either the hornet or the kicker. I was convinced that these people would cause us to loose more rights, as if we just sort of operate under the radar, then the anti-gunners would leave us alone. But they never leave us alone and they never will.

    I’m thinking differently lately. It seems to me that you do not affirm rights except on the boundaries. The First Amendment is not re-affirmed when people are only saying things that everyone agrees with, but by our (as distasteful as it may be) support for people to say things that we consider disgusting.

    Maybe this is the same thing. Force the open carry issue to protect the right. I’m not completely sold on that yet, but that’s the direction I’m leaning.

    • I’m in pretty much the same place as you are. Maybe if when we are out and strolling the sidewalk and come upon an open carrier, we should tip our NRA hat and engage him/her in friendly small talk conversation. Perhaps if the “other” folks see that these open carriers are treated by others as regular people, talking baseball scores, the price of groceries, the weather, etc, it won’t be the shocking butt clenching event that these gun fearing victim wannabees currently experience.

    • I’m not a legal or history scholar, but I think the first amendment protects the voicing of ideas, not vulgar language and smut. We must tolerate some level of vulgarity incase a word like freedom gets labeled as vulgar or hate speech.

      Like guns, you have the right to use whatever words and images you desire, but the responsibility to be polite and judicious in their use.

      • Actually, First Amendment challenges against vulgarity, etc., at least in a public setting have settled the issue – you can basically say whatever you want, with boundaries around possible “hate speech” (prohibitions against which should be considered violations against the numero uno, but sometimes aren’t) and threatening or inciting (as in to riot) speech.

        But I was thinking more about the KKK and the American Nazi Party, the filth that comes out of their mouths being disgusting to me.

    • Back in the days of two Germanys there was an air force pile-it assigned to fly a daily ‘freedom of the skies’ flight into and out of Berlin, iirc, just making the point to the Soviets. Believe it was a Cessna or somesuch aircraft.

  6. I do think carrying an AR-15 to something like a farmer’s market is pretty tone deaf. If they just wore pistols, nobody would raise a stink… but raising a stink was probably the goal of the OC activists here.

    These guys who OC long guns in places where they could not use them without a high risk of collateral damage are starting to remind me of the nudists in San Francisco. They think it is their right to make everyone look at their flabby butts and their twig and berries, but the reality is nobody wants to see it. For years the city just told them they had to put towels down if they used public seating until finally the demand to clamp down on them built to a rumbling crescendo.

    The vast majority of the nudists in San Francisco were male homosexuals that enjoyed exhibitionism. They exploited a legal loophole to sexually assault the people of San Francisco. Many years ago, I a saw a photographer’s collection of images from the Folsom Street Fair… a gathering of homosexuals in San Francisco, and what I saw there was shocking. Sodomy in windows, old perverts on parade in full bondage gear and little else. Penetrative acts on the street, children were present in the frame. It was biblical.

    Do we really want to become like those Nudists in San Fran? Because that is where these OC long gun guys are taking us. It is a good right to have, in case something crazy happened, but we all know the utility of the rifle for self defense is much lower than it is for hunting. Leave it in your damn truck and carry a pistol.

    • OC is going to lead to sodomy on the streets? Yikes! In all seriousness, you carry a pistol when you aren’t expecting trouble and you carry a rifle when you are. Now, if I could carry a rifle everywhere, I’d think about it, but wouldn’t. Not because I’m inherently against it, the damn thing just gets heavy and in the way. Did it in war, but that’s because we were trying to kill and they were trying to kill us. You know, we expected trouble.

      • And, I fail to see where sodomy and nudity in general are necessary to the security of a free state.

        You’ve hit upon one of the points in defense of OCing long guns in public. You, I, and many others know how unwieldy, uncomfortable, and heavy a long gun can be to carry in everyday life. That’s one of many reasons more people need to do it. It’s part of training oneself to deal with the added difficulties that long gun carry introduces. It loosely falls under the ‘well regulated’ part of the Second Amendment. Also, if carrying long guns in public doesn’t become much more common now, how much easier it will be for those who are securing the free state to be picked out of society by agents of government one day? When OCing of long guns is normalized to the point that one cannot automatically expect to be taken undue notice of and have a law enforcement encounter, then the actual purpose stated in the Second Amendment will be much more likely to be effective. Individuals working against tyranny are harder to spot in a crowd of long guns. Likewise, crowds of long guns reminds government of the purpose and reality of the 2A. Do you really think that the current government thinks that the Second Amendment is still relevant today? Is the reality that the 2A is ACTUALLY serving its deterrent purpose with the federal government? Are the liberals/socialists/marxists of this Nation respecting the full effect and original intent of the Second Amendment? The answer, IMHO, to all of these questions, is “No!” Unless people wish to see things get to the point of a bloody conflict in this nation, the true intent and scope of the 2A must be respected and we must return to it. The deterrent effect has been diluted for so long that the only thing which will remain will be the ultimate implementation of the RKBA. Loosely similar to cold war nuclear deterrent; if the enemy doesn’t see a credible display of the reason they don’t outright invade and attack you, then the deterrent side of the equation is lost and real destruction becomes an eventuality. Socialists don’t take the threat of the Second Amendment seriously. They claim that it’s outdated and they ridicule the idea of the People securing our free State. Government obviously doesn’t take the threat of the Second Amendment seriously. Look at the nearly exponential infringement of rights codified by our federal government these days. The deterrent effect of the Second Amendment has been all but lost in these modern times. It spells disaster for our free Nation. I implore you to get behind carrying of long guns for without them being seen regularly in public, we are setting the stage for two possible outcomes; tyranny or bloody correction. I don’t wish to see either so I support the true, the plain meaning and scope of the Second Amendment completely and without reservation, qualifier, or caveat. The axiom is simple and fitting; If you want peace, prepare for war. The open carrying of long guns in public falls squarely under the intent and plain language of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It is the duty of free individuals of our nation to support and defend it.

        • Very good points. If the prevention of a foreign invasion required node citizens, it would have been included in the 2A. The 2A doesn’t give the right to bear arms, it just affirms it and was intended to keep the government from infringing on it.

        • Training is good but if you want to train for serious business then you want to do something a little more strenuous then carry your AR around. Here is an example of effective training. I plan on having my wife drive me to the corner of Brock and Orange Plank Road down in the Wilderness. I am going to take my 300 win mag, because it is about the weight of a Civil War rifled musket, and a pack with 40lbs of gear and walk the eight miles to Spotsylvania just like a soldier in the Army of the Potomac.. It combines a walk through history with good physical training. Not everybody has the opportunity to train in a historical environment but I highly recommend that if you want to get comfortable “bearing arms” that’s how you want to do it and not by showing up at the local farmers market.

        • tdiinva, my comment stated that it was “loosely based” on ‘well regulated’. Rigorous training > light training > everyday familiarity > once in a while familiarity >no training and no familiarity. Additionally, it’s good for people to become accustomed to the annoyances and issues when one carries their own long gun in everyday life. It’s no picnic and presents interesting obstacles which are more easily surmounted a little bit at a time as they arise while one goes about their lawful business. Also, familiarity wasn’t the only point of my post. Deterrence was the stronger point.

          Glad to read that you’re rigorously training and I agree with you. It’s good stuff and thank you for doing so. Carry on.

    • +1ish. I don’t think seeing someone naked is the same as being sexually assaulted.

      I do, however, think how your impressions of gays has been affected by the nudists speaks volumes to how otherwise neutral people can be affected by seeing spooky looking long guns being carried around like that. When I look at what did work for the gay rights movement I see people that used logic and advocacy to demonstrate that they weren’t hurting anyone and had a right to be who they are. I see a similar approach working for gun rights, not the “look, I have a gun, if you don’t like it FOAD”. Bu that’s just me.

    • Do we really want to become like those Nudists in San Fran?

      If we’re not blowing each other on street corners, I think that we’ll be all right. Besides, those nudists that you’re complaining about now own San Francisco, in case you haven’t noticed.

    • You know, the same situation existed in Manhattan, in Greenwich Village and (I swear) the Meat Packing District. Now they own the condos in Village and the High Line. Go figure…

    • That’s an apples to oranges comparison. Read the whole Second Amendment for actual meaning. To have a free state, it’s necessary for individuals to keep and bear arms; that doesn’t just mean sidearms. Confining individuals to bearing only handguns would be an infringement that obviously flies right in the face of the Second Amendment. Your comparison is a far jump and is illogical. Either you don’t truly understand the 2A or you are, deep down, opposed to it. It’s not about individual self-defense against others. It’s not about hunting. It’s not about target shooting. It’s not about collecting. Those are part of a larger body of natural rights. It’s also not about people ‘feeling safe’. It’s about an ever present organic response to tyranny and TRUE terrorism. That response must be free to flow throughout our society at all levels, day in and day out, and every conceivable place realistically possible in order for it to be effective. This must be so in times of peace to prevent its need and ensure its success during times of strife. Please don’t be short sighted. Please don’t support infringement of the individual right to keep and bear arms.

  7. I agree 100% there are far too many crazies out there walking the streets with AR-15 capacity Glock47s. ITS AN OUTRAGE. it doesnt stop at guns, these hooligans dress up in bullet proof vests and act and tool around town in overly sporty cars wasting taxpayer money by harassing harmless pot heads cause its easy.

    I recently had an encounter with one of these armed thugs, I could not take my eyes off of his deadly assault gun I was frozen with fear. Luckily nobody was hurt.

    (end sarcasm)

  8. “… see these as two rogues trying to make a point.”
    What the city of Appleton really needs to see is 5-10 families with children spending their cash with both parents carrying ‘non-scary’ hunting rifles. Eventually their status go from rogues to kooks to weird people to john and jane. At that point you’ve fixed some people.

  9. Maybe Mary should have a chat with the head of INTERPOL who could enlighten her with his latest revelation on an armed society.

    • Speaking of the INTERPOL revelation on having an armed society…can TTAG confront the Shannon Watts on that stance?

      I’d love to see the attempted spin or more likely the complete avoidance by MDA of that topic.

  10. Sorry, I’ve seen too many home invasions, stores held up, and unnecessarily brutal attacks on random people to not carry a weapon where I can. Dont carry if you dont want to, thats your choice, I carry and thats my choice.

    • Ironically, I bet the woman quoted would heartily endorse the bumperstickerlogic: “If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one!”

  11. From the article: “Another quirk in state law allows for concealed carry permit holders to possess a gun — open or concealed — within the traditional 1,000-foot buffer zone around schools.” What sophistry! When you can’t call it illegal, call it a break from tradition.

    Sure, I remember when my Gran-pappy bounced me on my knee and told me all the family traditions–mass every Sunday, Tom and Jerry’s on Christmas morning, at no concealed carry within 1000 feet of a school.

  12. “I do not want to live like this where people feel they have to carry guns to protect themselves at a public and/or family event.”

    I do not want to lives like this, where everyday I wake up and Salma Hayek isn’t letting me go to town on her money and her a$$, but here we are lady.

  13. That’s the problem with the progressives’ worldview: it’s based on how they FEEL the world “should” be, rather than what IS. They choose to ignore reality and embrace hope, change, and utopian fantasies.

    I have heard antis explain gun free zones as such: “schools and churches should be safe places where you don’t need a gun, therefore they should be banned there” Here, this woman has expanded that sentiment to all public spaces.

  14. Choosing not to carry or have a gun DOES NOT magically make one safer! Having a gun also doesn’t make one safer, but it gives them a fighting chance in that hopefully unlikely event. Just put the blanket back over your head, darling, it makes everything okay.

  15. “I do not want to live like this where people feel they have to carry guns to protect themselves at a public and/or family event.”

    And I would rather not live like this where idiots confuse what people “feel” they “have to” do with what they are legally well within their rights to do as they exercise a God-given and Constitutionally protected freedom. Moron.

  16. That’s fantastic. Ms. Mary Rutten can go out in public totally unarmed and naked as a J-bird if she wishes. (Well, actually, there are laws against public nudity.) And I will go out in public armed if I wish.

    I do not insist that she be either armed or unarmed in public. And I expect that she will do the same for me.

    • wouldn’t take much to look up her address, show up with a video camera and record her decline a “There are no guns here” sign . . . vis-a-vis Project Veritas. . . . .

  17. Yeah, yeah, the 2A community is all paranoid and shit. That doesn’t make us wrong when it comes to the government. For example, the price of bullets is going up . . . way up!

    Doe Run to shut Herculaneum lead plant at 2013 end
    Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:13pm GMT

    NEW YORK, June 29 (Reuters) – The only primary lead smelter in the United States will close, and its owner, Doe Run Co said o n F riday, and the company will not build another plant to replace the one it is closing at Herculaneum, Missouri.

    The company, which the U.S. government had ordered to either shut the smelter or install cleaner technology, said the electro winning technology developed to process lead at Herculaneum did not make financial sense for that site.

    “Doe Run has decided not to build its proposed, lead electro winning plant to process its Missouri mineral resources. We concluded that building a plant here would generate an unacceptable financial risk to the company,” Jerry Pyatt, vice president and chief operating officer, said in a press release.

    . . .

    __________________

    “We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion:
    the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases,
    while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage
    of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”
    – Ayn Rand

  18. I figure it is time to stir up the “openly carried rifles in public” debate again.

    Before anyone chimes in, let me throw some considerations on the table. First of all, anyone who has visited a shooting range has been around lots of people carrying rifles openly. Second of all, anyone who has hunted has probably encountered a few people openly carrying rifles. Why were those people “okay”? Why would someone carrying a rifle slung over their shoulder strolling down the sidewalk not be “okay”?

    More importantly, we must not ever create legal criteria to specify when openly carried rifles are “okay” in public. Disasters, however minor or major, can strike without any foreknowledge and it could take hours, days, or even weeks for a governing body to officially “recognize” the disaster and give the “okay” to carry rifles openly. Meanwhile, people would needlessly be at risk and possibly dying while waiting for the governing body to give the green light.

    Finally, people operate deadly missiles weighing several thousands of pounds (automobiles) every day. Each missile is capable of killing several people with ease. No one bats an eyelash at them. Why the attention on rifles?

    • how many Nobel Peace Prize winners have a kill list replete with collateral damage (aka children) from drone strikes?

    • But TPTB won’t allow you to carry or even possess in a disaster area (see Katrina and Sandy) once THEY get there to “protect” you. Note that In some NYC boroughs the armed residents merely put up their weapons during the roving NYPD press conferences and took them right out again once the idiots left. NO looting there.

    • When is the last time you saw and Indy racer or a NASCAR stock car toddling down Main Street? While it is perfectly acceptable for the Army to practice with its tanks and artillery on its vast bases in Texas does not mean that we want the Army posting tanks and soldiers at every street corner. Nudity is legal and acceptable in my shower, but not down at the Opera House. The flaw in your logic is that simply because something is completely acceptable in one place means it should be completely acceptable in another, and this simply isn’t true. So think it through and try again.

      Here, let me help you out a bit. “Acceptability” is a question of current community standards. And that which is acceptable today may not be acceptable tomorrow. It was perfectly legal to carry loaded firearms in the State of California–until the Black Panthers marched on the Capitol. Unloaded open carry was legal until the OC crowd started having coffee klatches at Starbucks and hanging out on the Boardwalk in Southern California. Soccer moms are at the current time defining what is “acceptable,” and you have to change the community perception to defeat them.

  19. Whoa they reviewed more than a dozen comments on this situation. I wonder if it was a bakers dozen and if so moms demand something stupid again better watch out or they will get shown up by appleton as the grassroots poster child for gun control.

  20. Interesting quote from a hoplophobe that is sheltered and willfully ignorant of the realities of crime, self defense, violence, and the mental health issues that are eroding the 2A in the US.

    My advice to her: Before you open your mouth again, do everyone a favor and educate your self on crime statistics, crime prevention, violence prevention, self defense statistics, and the subject in general. It’s embarrassing for any “adult” to be so ignorant. And we wonder why kids are out of control in the country when so many adults out themselves as idiots like this.

    • You misconstrue women liberals for hoplophobes.

      Women liberals have very specific reasons for hating and fearing guns. It is an extension of their hatred and fear of men who are manly (masculine, aggressive, competitive.) That’s why liberal men are by and large effeminate pantywaists – because their manliness has been drummed out of them systematically by their women.

      Conservative and Libertarian men are scary, period. Because they refuse to buckle to the will of the feminists and liberals. The guns are just extensions of men and so are just as hated and reviled. However Misandry is executed under cloak and cover with the promise of sex if you agree to be “a good boy”. Gun hatred doesn’t need such camoflouge.

      It is no coincidence that the people who have the guns are generally the manly man who refuse to be converted into panty-waists.

      Are you starting to see it yet?

      There is a reason they call women like me the “third sex” – there is a special kind of hatred and revulsion for women who refuse to join Team Woman and get on the bandwagon to stump for their cause. All the better for me as I do enjoy the conflict 😉

      (Dare I say, you’ll find some answers here: http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/)

      • Outfvckingstanding the whole “promise of sex if you’re a good boy” reminds me of my ex wife… also lends creedance to my hypothesis that liberalism and anti gun sentiments in men is a sexual function. We sing the song just to get in the cute feminists’ pants and as we all know you sing long enough you believe it… like me. Honestly I was all for Obummer and gun control ( and getting out of the army which I NEVER should have done I love it and miss it now but my med record screws me from getting back in) now I’m back to who I was before I mixed up with her I hunt shoot and offroad regularly.

  21. Yet another reason SBRs should be taken off the NFA list. If they had shorter barrels, they wouldn’t be as big and scary!

    And like it or not lady, this country IS our fortress. If you don’t want to take your turn at post, then maybe you should f*ck away off home and go about hoping/praying you never get taken to task for your lack of personal accountability where your safety is concerned.
    Guns don’t “stop and frisk” people. They don’t make you empty your purse before you walk in. They don’t charge you a cover to pay their lazy security, and they certainly don’t advertise “SOFT TARGET” like your precious metal detectors and GFZ signs do. In fact, they might be the simplest, least intrusive, and least expensive way to make public places safer. So, by extension, that makes the people carrying them around pretty damn smart, doesn’t it? In fact, I guess the only idiot would be someone who thinks that some “security” guards or a cellphone that can call up help in mere minutes is sufficient to protect themselves….

    • They don’t care, it’s ok to sacrifice some in the drive to wean out all aggression and competitiveness.

      They can always make more.

  22. Well, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, carry every day, either on or about their bodies or in their vehicles. Untold additional people carry some form of nonfirearm means of self defense. The issue isn’t so much what any of these people, or those who carry firearms openly, *feel* as to the perceived dangers they face. The issue is their right to self defense.

    What those discomforted by all this object to isn’t so much others defending themselves or others perceiving danger to themselves. No, what they really resent is the reminder that evil exists in the world and that they’ve shirked their responsibility to address it. These are the same people who skimp on life insurance, underfund their retirement, and perpetually procrastinate naming beneficiaries, appointing god parents, and writing a will.

    Their basic quarrel is with reality. They’re piggies living in straw huts, which is bad enough as they’re later clamoring to be let into my brick house; but must they mock me throughout the entire construction project?

  23. I would be a very happy person if I lived in a world where interpersonal violence didn’t exist. The sheer amount of time and money I wouldn’t have invested in the skills and tools needed to deal effectively with violence could be spent on something pleasant, like learning to play guitar. Likewise all the resources we’ve expended as a society on police and military could be used for something else, such as education and space exploration and life saving research.

    My back would not hurt from lugging a pistol and ammo around all day, then again my nose would never have been broken so badly that I still have serious sinus problems, my jaw bone would never have penetrated my ear canal, my shoulder wouldn’t have this catch . . .well, you get the idea.

    The problem is that violence is a reality. A daily, real life, not so remote problem that can become my problem or your problem at anytime without notice. You can’t make it go away by pretending it doesn’t exist. It’s not a childhood boogie man that you can hide from simply by staying under the blanket. It’s real, in your face, without regard for who you are as a person, aggressive, sudden, painful and terrifying, perhaps for the rest of your life, which might be many years or only moments.

    Whether you’re a commando or a pacifist violence can come to you. I’ll leave it to you to figure out who has the better chance coming out alive and well when it comes to them.

  24. I know this gives the “true believers” a case of the vapors, but honestly….people who go parading around with AR15 strapped on their backs are simply not helping our cause. At. All.

    “Tone deaf” as somebody said earlier is spot on.

  25. We’ve allowed the left to re-frame the argument and turn it into a ‘conversation’ about ‘reasonable gun control’. I won’t re-hash (unless someone asks) most of what I’ve already posted in two replies to comments in this thread. Suffice it to say; the Second Amendment is not about individual self defense against individual criminals. Its not about hunting. Its not about target shooting. Its not about collecting. The enumerated right to keep and bear arms is about two things; deterrence and a free people defending against tyranny, invasion, and enemies (foreign and domestic). By allowing the left to shift the argument, they’ve been able to side step the whole reason for the Second Amendment. Now, even some gun owners buy into the slight of hand and seem to forget what the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is all about. As many people as possible ought to be carrying long guns each day, every day, everywhere possible. Without it, the 2A has lost it’s deterrent; half or more of its strength. We’re allowing the stage to be set for one of our two greatest fears… tyranny or bloody domestic conflict. If one must rail about crime states, criminal behavior, personal self defense, etc then fine. However, please remember that NONE of that has anything to do with the 2A protected right to keep and bear arms. Please don’t let the left pull the wool over your eyes and sell you a bridge to enslavement or war.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *