Quote of the Day: Wait, What? Edition

Erika Soto Lamb, Comms Dir. for Everytown for Gun Safety et. al (courtesy Twitter)

“We have armed security because other people on your side of the debate threaten our lives. I wish it weren’t the case, but it is.” – tweet from Erika Soto Lamb, comms director for Everytown for Gun Safety (includes Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action) [h/t DrVino]

comments

  1. avatar KingSarc48265 says:

    It would be cheaper for you to hang gun free zone signs where ever you go. Unless of course those dont work.

    1. avatar FoRealz? says:

      Win!

    2. avatar Scott says:

      I burst out laughing on this gem.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      I think there is a teeshirt with the logo.

    4. avatar Jumbie says:

      You are indeed the king. Long live the king.

  2. avatar woody from ny says:

    I think the logic train just left the station…..nope, she wasn’t on it.

    1. avatar SAS 2008 says:

      Logic has nothing to do with it. It is just a lie.

  3. avatar imrambi says:

    It’s because they want a “good guy with a gun” if a bad guy with a gun appears.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      Bam!… there is it! Winning statement. Winning.

  4. avatar Streit says:

    Ok. So you agree that Firearms are the most effective tool to defend oneself against those that wish harm. But you think that other people shouldn’t have them, to defend themselves against say criminals for… reasons?
    The sense, you make none.

  5. avatar detroiter says:

    Holy crap! She looks like my ex girlfriend….is that really her picture!?

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      hmmmm. . . . . .

    2. avatar Red Sox says:

      I think that mug of hers is enough to repel most anything, sorry Detroiter.

      1. avatar FoRealz? says:

        This is what a feminist looks like!

        (Yeah, that’s pretty much what I was expecting.)

      2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        back off, son. back off. so is she a mom?

  6. avatar Dev says:

    “Guns for me and none for thee!” Is anyone here the least bit surprised that these people are complete hypocrites?

    OK, WOW I just read through a bunch of her tweets. She’s their communication director??? My eight year old niece makes more sense when she texts me than this woman does!

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      Like Space Shot Kelly; AR for me and none for thee.

      Two faced bigots, they all are!

  7. avatar John L. says:

    Really?

    If so, I’m sure the DA of whatever jurisdiction is appropriate would be *very* interested in seeing the threats. You did save the email, voicemail or letters, right?

    1. avatar Richard says:

      Yeah, my thoughts. If you’ve been threatened, why haven’t you tried the law if guns are so much of an anathema to you? I dare say, she’s full of crap.

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        She just feels safer knowing she has armed protectors nearby. But in her mind, it doesn’t matter whether she actually received threats or not, because everyone knows that “Gun Nuts Are Just That Way.” Truth isn’t important as long as we “Send The Right Message.”

    2. avatar Jim Barrett says:

      I’m sure they have indeed received death threats. They are advancing a very unpopular agenda against a large percentage of this country. Some of those people are either very angry and/or are not playing with a full deck, so I’m sure that some people have indeed sent threats.

      That said, there is a big difference between sending a death threat (which is easy) and actually carrying said threat out (which is a lot harder and has consequences). So, have they gotten threats? Almost certainly. Were any of those threats truly credible? Not likely.

      The simple fact is that they are more concerned about people coming up to them and harrasing them for their stupid, selfish viewpoints than they are anyone actually tryng to kill them. The pair of pillsbury doughbouys are there to intimidate people, not to stop a real assasination attempt which they have almost zero chance of doing. If they were truly in fear of their lives, the’d either get a lot better security or simply shut up, go home, and raise their kids.

      1. avatar BLAMMO says:

        Yeah, what public figure doesn’t receive threats? The most innocuous and non-controversial public figures receive threats, mostly not credible, I’m sure.

        But if you’re going to start COMMENT MODERATED with people’s livelihoods or COMMENT MODERATED with people rights, you’d better be ready for what comes.

    3. avatar DJ says:

      More to the point, I’m not familiar of any anti-gunner who has actually been shot due to their beliefs. Some idiot with a double digit IQ trolling you on your facebook page does not represent a credible threat.

  8. avatar peirsonb says:

    These COMMENT MODERATED support COMMENT MODERATED like David Guth and Piers Morgan threatening my family and then have the COMMENT MODERATED to claim that they’re the ones that don’t feel safe?

  9. avatar ThomasR says:

    Lies, Lies and more lies, all they know is how to lie; show us the postings of the threats that are being made and then since threatening a persons life is against the law, show us the charges being filed against these homicidal maniacs.

    But you can’t show those threats because they only exist in your night terrors at the idea of a free people legally keeping and the bearing of arms.

  10. avatar Tim says:

    Talk about the mother of all ironies.

  11. avatar Nine says:

    Irony.

    Sweet, delicious irony.

    1. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

      She thinks we’re violent? I say we’re as peaceful as she is ironic. Extremely.

  12. avatar P. Nissman says:

    I really hoped HER tweet was more like the US Air tweet 2 weeks back…

  13. avatar Tres Huevos says:

    Hypocrisy reigns supreme in moonbat land!

  14. avatar Pulatso says:

    So your 2A right protects you against those who are trying to silence your 1A right. Wow, it’s almost as if someone enumerated these rights to work in conjunction. But thats crazy talk.

    1. avatar Richard says:

      Amazing how that works isn’t it? Really amazing how those 2 Amendments are intertwined.

    2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      That sounds like domestic terrorist talk to me.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      It is even better than that. She is using the 1st Amendment to actually undermine our liberty.

      The only thing our side wishes to do is exercise both our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights without interference from government.

  15. avatar BillF says:

    She said that the cops can’t protect her from threats so she relies on good guys with guns. No, wait a minute…that’s part of our argument. She said…..What’d she say?

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Now, now, we don’t know for sure their security is armed.

      Maybe security’s job is to pee on the moms during a would be assault, so the moms don’t have to pee on themselves.

      Maybe the security guards are only armed up with Big Gulps and asparagus.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        “… only armed up with Big Gulps and asparagus.”

        That is too funny!

        (For those of you who don’t get it, asparagus causes a really foul odor in urine.)

  16. avatar pwrserge says:

    Anybody want to tell her that a pair of overweight mall cops offer zero protection against a sniper with a 30-06 deer rifle at 100 yards firing 180 grain soft points? (I also find it interesting that someone who claims to be afraid of psychotic shooters appears in public without even soft body armor.)

    If the people of the gun really wanted her or her pathetic sycophants dead, they would be dead. Basic logic dictates that if gun activists were as violent as Moms Demand Bedroom Action claim, none of them would have made it home from that rally alive. Given that not a single pro-tyranny activist has been shot to date… I think their logic could use some work.

    So… Either the goons were basically there to be goons, or her security company knows nothing about VIP security. I think I find the former far more likely.

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Is this hypothetical sniper planning on shooting through the pudgy bodyguards to hit the target? Because with an anorexic middle aged woman like Shannon Watts I think a 55gr. .223 round would be overkill at 100 yards.

      1. avatar Anon says:

        Expect to see them tweet this comment. Good job, idiot.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          They make up death threats and you’re worried they’ll latch on to my observation that a 180gr. 30-06 would be a little overkill?

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Which part? The part where I pointed out that blatant incompetent thuggery is blatant or the part where a reply questioned the validity of my threat assessment and pointed out a flaw in my logic?

          Quite frankly, Mrs. Watts needs to get a more competent security detail. I would be happy to refer her to people actually capable of protecting her from the things she claims to fear.

      2. avatar Jim says:

        Can you please edit this comment? You are making her point for her. I know, first amendment and all, but this kind of talk is what they are talking about.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Why are we so uptight about the PC business around here? First off, they’re making up allegations of death threats, so what would prevent them from making up more allegations? The bodyguards are clearly for show, if they actually feared for their lives they’d take their security seriously.

          Second, if they want to take a comment under some blog from a guy named Le Petomane out of context, are they really going to score any points with anyone intelligent enough to navigate the search bar at wikipedia.org? If they want to play that game there are thousands other comments in forums and blogs that will do just as well.

        2. avatar anon says:

          @Gov. William J. Le Petomane:
          “Why are we so uptight about the PC business around here?”

          Because you’re making Shannon Watts’ job easier, idiot. You say they make up imaginary death threats, yet here you are talking about how to kill her. Hopefully they take note and this gets resolved with a knock on your door by guys with badges. Idiot.

      3. avatar Jumbie says:

        Gov William hurts the gun fight more than any demanding mom with this foolish attempt at humor.

        The gun fight is a PR fight and anyone who thinks different hasn’t been paying attention. They are fighting out of the Alinsky playbook and we need to innoculate ourselves against their tactics.

        There’a reason that the civil rights movement didn’t make a campaign out of the FIRST black woman to refuse to give up her seat. They waited til they had someone with a better image to present, because they knew how the smear tactics worked.

        Gov William just made their job easier. He just hurt gun rights for some idiotic humor.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          No humor here, I was just questioning why a hypothetical sniper would pick a load usually reserved for elk or moose if he was targeting a 120 pound woman. If making note of the fact that Shannon Watts is much smaller than a moose helps her do her job, than so be it. She’s got a such a monumental task that she can’t even attempt to tackle it without blatantly lying, so I’m a long way from worrying.

        2. avatar Charles says:

          Because a 180 grain bullet is a typical round for a .308 rifle. No other real reason.

          Yea I wouldn’t worry too much. Typically they try and try to ban the guns but only succeed in getting a few from the naive that think “Oh well the police will protect me right?” Or from confiscations when the police find a banned weapon on a search. then wonder why gun related crime goes up instead of down.

    2. avatar Vivian says:

      I’m a mom and when our son was a teen, he got a 410 shotgun so he could go hunting with his friends, who also had shotguns and strangely enough, not a one of them got hurt, or killed by their own hand, or the others’. I don’t know how that happened, except that they were all responsible kids and everyone their age went hunting, so they knew how to handle firearms.

      This mom is only against the bad guys, and good guys ? being irresponsible about their mouths and firearms because they help the people like this space cadet work against common sense and the Constitution of this country.

  17. avatar Elisa Delaurenti says:

    When can we start filing lawsuits against these vermin for hate speech, defamation, slander, harassment and inciting violence against entire groups of citizens.

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      As soon as the courts start recognizing the constitution as established law.

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        I believe that’s scheduled for the second Tuesday of next week.

  18. avatar stokeslawyer says:

    What a coincidence, I do the same thing. Of course the only person I could afford fathered my children, looks like me, and is named Stokeslawyer, but he does carry a gun.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      did you ask for ID ?

  19. avatar Alex Peters says:

    A more accurate tweet would’ve been, “we have armed security because it’s not all that expensive to protect all 5 of our supporters”.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      All 5? Did they have a recruiting drive recently?

  20. I really would like to see evidence of these “threaten our lives”, if it were true there would be police showing up at those doorways, wouldn’t there?

    Of course these are the same people that believe people who have a gun in a holster are doing it to threaten and intimidate them, so reality is apparently a nebulous concept to them.

  21. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    So, what should us po’ folks who can’t afford security do if we feel our lives are in danger…

    Flash light? Rape whistle? Rolled up newspaper?

    1. avatar FoRealz? says:

      Refer to the instructions they previously provided you:

      1. Fetal position.
      2. Yell.
      3. Whistle.
      4. Urinate on self.
      5. Defecate on self.
      6. Have your period.
      7. Vomit on self.

      No pepper spray or firearms! Those things are for trained personnel only. Good luck out there citizen!

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        “1. Fetal position.
        2. Yell.
        3. Whistle.
        4. Urinate on self.
        5. Defecate on self.
        6. Have your period.
        7. Vomit on self.”

        So drink Tequila then?

        1. avatar FoRealz? says:

          Yeah pretty much, lol.

  22. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    Is anybody really surprised by this response? I mean as much as we hammer this issue over and over we really walked into it. “Oh I need security because all you crazy gun nuts scare me” I’m actually surprised it took them that long to come up with that answer.

  23. avatar Richard says:

    These are people who failed to make it past screening for one of the ‘Housewives of Somewhere’ show and have now found an outlet for their darkest, psychotic fears.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      You just stumbled across The Mighty Midget’s new PSYOPS campaign! The Real Wives of Everytown. The new hit show, only on CNN and MSNBC. Airs nightly in Piers’ old time slot.

  24. avatar George says:

    “She” responds with a selection of about 5 answers. Is she real?

  25. avatar N8thecowboy says:

    Hahaha! So funny these people!

  26. avatar BlueBronco says:

    If they are threatening your lives little twit, they aren’t from our side.

  27. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    This statement reveals the real position of gun grabbers: it is okay if they (or their agents) are armed against threats to their lives, but it is NOT okay if the masses are armed against threats to their lives.

    This is elitism. It has no place in our society.

  28. avatar craig says:

    Someone please ask her what someone else is supposed to do when their life is threatened that doesn’t have armed security????

    1. avatar FoRealz? says:

      Stop complaining peasant. They don’t like it when you complain about such things.

  29. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    She does an absolutely perfect job in in proving that it’s not at all about guns. Its about who has the guns.

    Paid henchmen with guns: OK
    Cops with guns: OK
    Agents of the state with guns: OK
    Law abiding citizen with a gun: Not OK

    It also shoots down Shannon Watt’s meme from SXSW where being near a gun made her feel unsafe.

    The derp is strong with them.

    1. avatar JR says:

      Yep, look how threatened she was there:

      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/03/daniel-zimmerman/incendiary-image-day-ankle-holster-edition/

      Terrified. I can see it on her face.

  30. avatar Gregolas says:

    Illogical, irrational, ill-conceived, and illegitimate: Moms Demand Armed Guards.

  31. avatar Greg says:

    A single shred of evidence of these threats? Nope.

    And now I state this:

    I HAVE GUNS BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE HAS THREATENED MY LIFE. I need no evidence other than my own justification.

    BOOM. DONE.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Greg,

      You don’t need any evidence because the other side’s threats are public record. They pass laws that criminalize citizens who have harmed no one and have no intention of harming anyone. And the penalty for violating those “laws” is assault, kidnapping, imprisonment, and quite possibly even death if you do not go along quietly.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Ah. IOW, the same penalty as grazing your cattle on Harry Reid’s private property, huh?

    2. avatar DJ says:

      I don’t own guns because I’m afraid someone will take them.

      I own guns because I’ve seen what happens after they are taken.

  32. avatar Sc says:

    It’s all part of the PR push. They make an overt effort to make their security obvious to further tarnish the image of gun owners. Having this type of security does actually stick with their message that only trained professionals should have guns. In their eyes, the rent-a-cops they hire are trained professionals, and therefor worthy of firearms.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Professionals? Are we talking about the fat, bald goons from a few days back? Somebody thinks those guys are some manner of professionals? It is to laugh.

  33. avatar Mark Anderson says:

    Who is threatening her life? Huh? What? 🙂

  34. avatar David says:

    Really??? Come on. You have to love liberal think. Only liberal if you agree with them. If you don’t your a racist. Moronic dog that should be thought a lesson. It pains me to see so many of my Hispanic brothers and sisters towing the line in lockstep with these people. Our people have come so far….yet most of us have learned so little. Just because you have a college degree. Doesn’t make you any more intelligent than someone who does not. Most liberal doctrine does not respect our cultural and religious beliefs. Yet they still fallow like sheep. While I don’t always agree with the right. There common believes are in line with the way I was raised. GOD, COUNTY AND FAMILY.

  35. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    They lose the debate because…

    Purchasing a firearm (or few) is infinitely cheaper than hiring armed security.

    And claiming to be threatened by law abiding citizens lets everyone know how inept they are at threat assessment and common sense. Sorry, but you can’t claim gun control is beneficial “for the children” and then admit you can’t even tell friend from foe in the next breath.

    So, what, your plan is to disarm whoever you perceive is a threat? There was a man in Germany that did that, didn’t really work out for him.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Or for anyone else on the planet.

  36. avatar SelousX says:

    What, you’ve never seen a hypocrite before?

  37. avatar Charles says:

    We law abiding citizens are not the ones that would harm you lady, We are the ones that would defend your butt against a criminal that would rather take your life for a few dollars in belongings. Lets look at this realistically. It takes 5 to 30 minutes for a police officer to show up, yet you’d rather let them defend you than do it yourself or allow someone, say a neighbor that has a gun, to defend you, because you’d rather ban the very guns that the police officers use and your neighbor may use, so that you FEEL safer??? Where’s the logic in that? Are you really that Naive to think that? “I don’t need a gun to defend myself, I have a knife.” Well you let us know how that works out against a gun wielding thug. Oh and yes I do speak from experience, in my case it was approximately 22 minutes before police got to me. Think what the thug could have done had he actually made it into the house. Oh I forgot, you have armed guards, good luck getting them to help you when they lose their guns because you got them banned. It’s OK though, we wont let you just ban them, so you are safe, for now.

    Sounds logical doesn’t it??

  38. avatar Megalith says:

    She’s an elitist NYC communist. Logic and facts don’t fit into the equation, only their ego. The ends justify the means no matter how badly the truth gets mangled. Their cause is more important than the rights of us uneducated peons because we’re too stupid to know what’s good for us.

    1. avatar Charles says:

      True, I just wish people would actually USE logic before they get even more people killed by trying to ban guns.

    2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      “…we’re too stupid to know what’s good for us.” Yep. We need to be disarmed, so that only the elite have armed protection. Then, the elite can feel free to make all the changes they want to make in our lives. Not their lives, of course. But how can we begrudge the Gores, Clintons, Obamas, etc. a few simple luxuries when they work so hard to take care of the benighted masses?

  39. avatar Paul G. says:

    If there have been implied threats, alert the police, and call them if an actual threat emerges…just like you tell us we should do. They are only minutes away.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      actually, I read somewhere in an interview she did, Shannon claimed my publicly noting here on TTAG that her HOME ADDRESS was also her MDA INCORPORATION ADDRESS and went to the police. Apparently, they laughed at her and said she was a public figure and shouldn’t have mad such a dumb mistake, or something like it. So I guess that is the “threat” she claims.. . . .

      1. avatar JR says:

        Well, that and Alan’s very threatening request to have a photo taken with Shannon in Texas a few months back.

        Mean old gunbullies. Smiling is just too dangerous.

  40. avatar FoRealz? says:

    It has been my experience that when debating issues with leftists that they invariably start issuing veiled death threats if not outright calls for extermination of entire groups of people (people who don’t think like them), while reasonable people who want to discuss something stand around scratching their heads.

    I think it is endemic to the racist, authoritarian and collectivist mindset of these people to act in that way. They pursue their ideas with a religious fervor that most door to door preachers would find disturbing.

    They also tend to believe that anyone who does not think as they do is ignorant and in need of being “educated” by them. Those that refuse to be “educated” are judged as less human than them, therefore they have no compunction about calling for their destruction.

    They are some of the most violent people I have ever seen discuss something on the Interwebz. Whether the topic at hand is global warning (oops, sorry, climate change), abortion, health care, or Constitutional issues. Whatever it is, you can be pretty sure that within a few minutes in the comments section, a leftist will say something to the effect of “Well, this problem wouldn’t be a problem if we could just get rid of all YOU people…”

  41. avatar Don says:

    We have the 2nd amendment because you threaten our lives.

  42. avatar fuque says:

    “We have armed security because other people on your side of the debate threaten our lives. I wish it weren’t the case, but it is.”

    “We have armed citizens because other people on your side of the debate threaten our freedoms. I wish it weren’t the case, but it is.”… So what now??

  43. avatar FoRealz? says:

    I think a bigger issue we have not talked about is how these “control” groups are racists, anti-woman and anti-gay.

    They wish to make sure that ethnic and religious minority groups and gay communities cannot defend themselves or have full access to their Constitutional rights, and that’s wrong, and it’s bigoted and racist.

    They are also contributing to the war on women by promoting the idea that women should be unarmed and therefore more easily victimized by rape culture. To say that Bloomturd is a racist and a misogynist would be an understatement.

    We should talk more about that and not just in the comments sections.

    1. avatar Wendy says:

      I absolutely agree. I think we do need to talk more about this.

  44. avatar sonnyroofy says:

    Why wouldn’t she just call the cops? I mean, they’re the only ones with proper training & qualificaions to handle firearms, right?

  45. avatar Pascal says:

    Once again, its all about the optics….gun owners are big scary brutes so we need body guards.

    If any of the threats where true, I am sure the local DA would be investigating and the left leaning media would be all over the story.

    The security theater is just for effects. it is just more lies used for emotional pull for the stupid uninformed groupies.

  46. avatar Flyboy says:

    I think her next course of action would be to file a restraining order. Armed security is NOT the answer. She should know this, that’s how they want the rest of us to live.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      so when I got married, I picked up a bunch of baseball hats that said “Designated Smoking Area” that I passed out to my groomsman, and then we had my wife pose with a picture of all of us wearing the hats and her holding a box of Padron Anniversario cigars . . . .

      Perhaps Shannon’s team needs to get “Gun Free Zone” Hats and wear those while forming a tight ring around her ??

  47. avatar allen says:

    i respect her for not wanting to own or have anything to do with firearms. but when she feels threatened she calls bloomberg to hire a person with a gun for her.

  48. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

    Wow, talking heads flashback. Now THESE MOMS WILL only remind me if the line “I got a girlfriend that’s better than that…”

  49. avatar Don says:

    They have armed security for three reasons:

    1) Because they think anyone with a gun who opposes their arguments is a danger to them (this is a level of paranoia never reached by the most committed of preppers).

    2) Because it is a visual marketing signal that reinforces their “victim” branding while at the same time suggesting they are “important people” with legitimate things to say and do.

    3) Because carrying a gun is a good idea in general and they think if they hire someone to caddy one for them they can achieve the benefit of the thing they oppose while distancing themselves from it, on a technicality.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You forgot the need for at least SOMEBODY to attend their rallies!

    2. avatar Don says:

      I think 2 is their main objective, because if they were worried about 1 they’d have hired less conspicuous protection.

  50. avatar EmptyJay says:

    Two words:

    PROVE IT.

    If there are threats against you, show us the police investigations and reports.

  51. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    and in other news, Erika Soto Lamb, comms director for Everytown for Gun Safety (includes Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action), announced today that she was leaving to pursue other opportunities. Shannon Watts, executive VP of Everytown, stated “Erika has been a real gem. We will miss her furious tweeting and honest dialogue. We wish her well as she move on to a brighter future”.

  52. avatar Taylor TX says:

    I dont think they would consider the Antis hoping gleefully for another shooting to happen to threaten any lives.

  53. avatar Mina says:

    Best combination of hypocrisy and projection I have seen in 140 characters or less from a gun grabber yet.

    They’re getting pretty desperate so I’m sure if I wait there will be better examples in the near future.

  54. avatar former water walker says:

    Aw…nothing left to say. Yeah PROVE IT. The only threats I see are from leftwing a$&@#!#s.

  55. avatar Lfshtr says:

    She needs to put up or shut up, liar, liar pants on fire! What kind of BS is this, the freaking B. ought to crawl back und the rock she came from. Not worth her weight in crap.

  56. avatar Tom from Georgia says:

    So much wow. Circular, self-fulfilling, naive, ignorant, victim complex, so many many others. Just take your pick.

    Far be from it for me to say that she really is Darwinism in action. As a practicing Roman Catholic, that’s saying something indeed.

    Equally amusing is that I don’t need to worry about my comments being a perceived ‘threat,’ as they victimize their own selves even when they claim otherwise. How remarkable.

    People like her need deep, intensive psychological counseling.

    Tom

  57. avatar Jake Tallman says:

    If we were as violent as the antis claim, there wouldn’t be any antis left.

  58. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Don’t threaten our freedoms and your lives won’t be threatened…

  59. avatar Petition For Redress says:

    Does anyone else find it ironic that some who is anti-gun has a last name of “Lamb” – maybe it’s me….

    1. avatar Charles says:

      I find it totally ironic that they are trying to ban the very guns that they are being protected by. “Oh but I didn’t mean ban that gun, only the gun of the criminals.” Duhh newsflash, criminals wont give theirs up just because you ban them.

  60. avatar jeremy says:

    ““…people* on your side of the debate threaten our lives….”

    *citation needed

    (also, does she really want us to compare the rate of convicted felons between MAIG and CCL holders?

    Sounds like someone needs to slice the pie-(chart)

  61. avatar Doug says:

    The only threats that I have heard are coming from these lying p.o.s.s’.

  62. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

    This blatant, elitist hypocrisy clearly shows the complete falsity of their entire position. What else is there to say? They’ve rendered their entire argument null and void in one paragraph.

  63. avatar A-Rod says:

    Anyone else think poisoning her hot tea with ricin would be more fun? POTG do not just use G.

    1. avatar Jumbie says:

      Are you sure you support gun rights?

      Because when you go around posting stupid ‘jokes’ like that in public it seems like you want us to be demonized before the world and make out job harder.

      1. avatar A-Rod says:

        Jumbie, back up the truck for a second. 1.) Yes, I should have included a sarcasm alert in my previous post. 2.) I guess you did not watch the TV show Breaking Bad or you would have gotten the ricin in the hot tea reference. 3.) Yeah, there are lots of stupid jokes on the forum. Get over it.

  64. avatar Maineuh says:

    This cannot surprise anyone. I’m pretty sure they have bodyguards to send that message alone. We’re taking on scary gun people and they’re all dangerous killers!

  65. avatar Cubby123 says:

    Well…You threaten ours with your asinine Stupidity,all the while Not addressing the Real problem….Hello Repeat offenders You Let out of Jail like all the time to prey on the unsuspecting citizens who You Are Trying To Deny Their Natural Civil and Constitutionally Protected RIGHTS To protect themselves from Gangbangers,Murderers,Rapists Child Molesters,Car Jackers,Thieves,Thugs etc,etc,etc….And you want to disarm Law Abiding,Trained And Licenced Conceal Carriers who would put the fear of God in these low life’s CAUSE YOU REFUSE TO LEARN ABOUT THE LAW OF THE LAND AND THE PROPER USE OF LEATHAL FORCE!!! SO …..YOU want US to come down to your level rather than you EDUCATE YOURSELF on the topic you know ABSOLTELY NOTHING ABOUT,SO WE can be at risk and danger as you are and we can have the police tell us as the Supreme Court ruled that they have NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS. AHHH…does that about sum it up??? WELL….here is our answer….FORGET IT!! PLAIN ENOUGH FOR YOU?? Hmm?

    1. avatar Tarrou says:

      Easy up there hoss. No reason to extend the stereotype of the ranting gun owner with CAPITAL LETTERS AND BAD PUNCTUATION!!r3211111

  66. avatar Aaron says:

    Far more innocent defenseless people have been murdered by their own anti-gun governments (that have banned civilian ownership of guns) or foreign invasions than by bad guy private civilians with guns.

  67. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Oh dear, you seem to have spilled some hypocrisy on yourself. Let me get you a damp towel before that stains.

    1. avatar DJ says:

      That made me LOL

  68. avatar Tarrou says:

    Doesn’t she know that guns are more likely to harm those who carry them than anyone wishing them harm?

  69. avatar William Burke says:

    Pentagon to destroy $1.2 billion worth of ammo:

    http://govtslaves.info/pentagon-destroy-1-billion-ammunition/

    Draw your own conclusions!

  70. avatar Hannibal says:

    Oh well that’s… wait, what?

    yep.

  71. avatar Tom says:

    Erika was asked on Twitter by Dana Loesch if she could provide tangible evidence of their members being threatened. She has yet to provide any proof. Lamb was not interested in seeing screen shots of their supporters making death threats against gun owners. I have some good ones including a antigun Brit saying if it took killing 250,000 people to enforce gun bans, so be it and another Tweet saying they want to use drones to kill gun owners.

  72. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    They have armed security because people on our side of the debate threaten them? I don’t know the facts of that and I certainly don’t condone threats to initiate deadly violence against anyone. I’d drop a dime on anyone if I had evidence they had made deadly threats against officials, activists, or whomever.

    Let’s assume it’s true, though, that they receive some threats; regardless whether idle or serious. That suggests to me that it’s their freedom infringing advocacy that brings them into close proximity with such people, which is voluntary. It’s a bad idea in general to go around condemning vast swaths of people as unworthy of their God-given rights. You’re bound to run into some who don’t respond well to that activity. Really, one of the best ways to avoid being stung by a peaceful honeybee is not to go poking its hive with a stick.

    That said, it also reveals that but for their freedom infringing advocacy, they faced no such threats. Sooo….law abiding firearms owners, by these people’s own admission through their own experience, posed no threat whatsoever prior to these disarmament campaigns. Curious, that.

    It reminds me of the old saw that the Second Amendment is unique among the Bill of Rights, in that it’s the only one you don’t need, until they try to take it.

  73. avatar Jürgen says:

    Lamb? You mean Sheep?

  74. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    “We have armed security because ••• we can afford it; only those who can pay for licensed, armed defenders have a right to any sort of armed defense.”

    There; fixed it for you, [expletive omitted].

  75. avatar H.R. says:

    I’ve never threatened any of those people in any way. I even try to respect their right to their opinions.

    This line is utter crap.

  76. avatar Glenn in Oklahoma says:

    We have armed security because other people on your side of the debate threaten our lives. I wish it weren’t the case, but it is.”
    This HYPOCRITICAL WENCH just proved the point that all Run Rights advocates have been saying all along.
    So Erica, you can have armed security, but we can’t have our own guns to defend ourselves?
    Funny.
    You are proving out point.
    “In a perceived threat of deadly force, I reserve by GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to defend my life with Counter-Deadly Force that is equal to yours or more to defend against yours”.

    Erika, you are safe.
    Your statement is only a passive aggressive response to only a political opponent.

    If Gun Rights Advocates wanted do to go after you, you couldn’t hire enough armed security.
    Be well.

  77. avatar BR549 says:

    With brains like that, this bimbo should stick to making a living on her back. These morons have no comprehension of the treason and corrupt politics in our world today because their pea-sized brains can’t wrap themselves around the problem.

    …… and yet they want to vote and breed.

  78. avatar GS650G says:

    Those on her side of the debate threaten lives trying to disarm the country

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email