Susie Madrak: At What Point Do We Shoot The Gun Nuts?

(courtesy susiemadrakcom)

Note: the headline at the top of this post is mine. The headline above Ms. Madrak’s polemic at crooksandliars.com is So At What Point Do We Actually Stand Up to the Gun Nuts? Her screed leaves no doubt that Ms. Madrak is asking when Uncle Sam is going to get the lead out (so to speak) and shoot “gun nuts” (a.k.a, armed opposition to federal overreach). The piece uses our Quote of the Day from Rick Perlstein – “Here is a truth so fundamental that it should be self-evident: When legitimately constituted state authority stands down in the face of armed threats, the very foundation of the republic is in danger” – as her jumping off point . . .

Perlstein doesn’t mention the big honkin’ elephant in the room: Namely, at what point does the federal government literally go to war with its own citizens? Because we’re not talking about bank robbers here, we’re talking about (mostly) non-criminal cranks — scofflaws and political malcontents. So what line has to be crossed in the good old U.S. of A. before we start mowing them down to make our point? Because you can’t talk about the Bundy ranch without talking about Ruby Ridge, and Waco.

So here’s the political corner into which we’ve painted ourselves.

Do we have the ATF and BLM agents roll up in armored tanks? Do we use drone strikes? I can see the administration’s reluctance to have that confrontation — after all, it’s not as if gun control advocates were flooding the White House switchboard, screaming to ‘take them out!’ And then we do have the militia types all over the country, just waiting for an excuse to start their own local uprising. These assholes want a civil war so bad, they can taste it.

Some days, I wonder: Should we let them, and just get it over with? You know, settle the burning question about whose is bigger.

As the tipster who emailed us this link says, “I think it worthwhile for you and your readers to know what kind of people we’re up against in the fight for our rights and freedoms.” Roger that. And keep your powder dry people, both literally and figuratively in the comments section below. And yes, that is the graphic on Ms. Madrak’s personal homepage.

comments

  1. avatar Bigred2989 says:

    Does she want to prove the more extremists in the gun rights group right or something?

    1. avatar Nighthawk says:

      Clearly she does. Which begs the questions, when are we going to demand satisfaction of them? If they are feeling froggy, they should just leap already.

  2. avatar esitue says:

    “Namely, at what point does the federal government literally go to war with its own citizens”

    I beg to differ; I am not the property of the US Government. The US Government is MY Property

    1. avatar Philthegardner says:

      +1

    2. avatar Roger says:

      At least it’s supposed to be, but it hasn’t been “the People’s” government for a very long time…

    3. avatar absoluterights says:

      Sorry buddy but nope.
      The government does not belong to you. It does not work for you. Congress is not your employees. It GOVERNS you.

      Ask yourself:
      Is the legislature legally obligated to obey you, or are you legally obligated to obey the legislature?
      -You are obligated to obey them.

      If a legislature passes a law that harms you, can you sue them?
      -No.
      How about a cop or a judge that upholds the will of the legislature?
      -No.

      Government is a distinct entity that has achieved rule making/military dominance over a society and can grant itself the power to harm with legal impunity.

      Learn civics and know your adversary.

  3. avatar former water walker says:

    Didn’t we do this dance earlier today? Or am I hallucinating again?

  4. avatar Maineuh says:

    After they come for us, they’ll come for her, too. Funny how she doesn’t see that.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      They might not if she aligns herself with the ruling class.

      This is what makes gun grabbers and statists so despicable: they are playing both sides.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        But she would definitely be expendable. They won’t care at all about a short article writer, whatshername.

      2. avatar Anonymoose says:

        They will eventually come for her anyway. Such is the nature of The Machine.

      3. avatar Mecha-Ben says:

        If you haven’t already, read “The Gulag Archipelago.” They most certainly will come for her. Something statists don’t understand is that you can sell out your fellow man and appease the party all you want; once you stop being useful to them, then they have no use for you, if you get my drift.

      4. avatar ThomasR says:

        No U_S; it’s the nature of their beast. They eat their own once the “useful idiots” have put in the ruling class. Since they hate themselves and as a consequence; hate everyone else; killing anyone that no longer serves a purpose is the nature of their sickness.

        1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          “Revolutions, like Saturn, will devour their own children.” – Jacques Mallet du Pan

  5. avatar GSRpositive says:

    ” we’re talking about (mostly) non-criminal cranks — scofflaws and political malcontents”.
    Sorry Ms. Madrak. Point of view dismissed as irrelevant due to your inability to debate a point without resorting to stereotyping and character assassination.

    1. avatar James says:

      Dismiss her “argument” or lack thereof. Dismiss her mindset at your own peril. You cannot coexist with someone like this. It is driven by blinding emotion. The writer hates and wants dead gun owners because of her hatred and rage for people that don’t share her views. Think of it this way, she could live next to a person for 20 years, get to know that neighbor real well, think of the neighbor as a wonderful person and be thankful that she has such a wonderful neighbor. Then she’d find out the neighbor is a gun owner, immediate change in her view of that neighbor. She’d quit interacting, start actively avoiding, never trust or want to see that neighbor again. Those driven by such emotions, can’t keep them bottled up forever, they will explode eventually. And in a means justify the ends world view they have, rule of law means nothing, they will be capable of everything including internment and execution.

      1. avatar A samurai says:

        It’s horrifying to see that there are citizens in this great nation that actually want their government to go around shooting (murdering) law abiding citizens over some possession that they own. If I said “At what point do we shoot the shovel owners?” everyone would laugh but its ok if its “guns”? Owning property isn’t a crime or an act of violence.
        At least it didn’t used to be.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          They’ve been shooting people for the possession of some drugs for a couple of generations now.

          I wonder if there’s a Republican that’s man enough to admit that the War on (some) Drugs is an abysmal failure and was wrong from the start?

        2. avatar pat says:

          I’m a Republican and I readily admit it was a failure. We’ve wasted millions of dollars and hundreds (thousands maybe?) of lives to combat this, and yet the flow of drugs continues into the United States unabated. If that’s not failure I don’t know what is. I think the main problem is that we’re focusing all of our efforts on attacking supply, while doing practically nothing to combat demand. If we invested half of what we spend on counter-drug SWAT teams and Police/Military actions in Central/South America into rehab programs for offenders – then maybe we’d actually see a decrease in drug use.

          With regards to “bad idea to begin with”, I’m not really in a position to make that judgement since the war started well before I was born. But some phrase that goes something along the lines of the road to Hell being paved with good intentions comes to mind…

      2. avatar Justin_GA says:

        Most anti-gunners I’ve had the pleasure to talk to have similar ideology to Nazi’s and the “unwanted”. I love to help them support there view points with quotes from Hitler and friends. Only after I’ve let them get all of there hate out and have them completely agreeing with me on famous Nazi quotes do I let them know. I never get tired of blank look on faces as they scan the faces of the other’s sitting at the dinner table knowing I just completely made them look like a bigoted anti-gun idiot.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Wow. Good job.

          Reminds of that move “The Wave” we watched in school in the early 80’s.

          http://thewavehome.com/

    2. avatar John G. says:

      Thank God no one ever does that around here. And radical conservatives are always ever so polite to the opposition … 😉

      1. avatar TheBear says:

        Yeah that’s exactly what I was thinking…

        And i know some around here may freak out that I point out this truth, but there really are some ignorant idiots who are chomping at the bit for a civil war. Most of them are poor, uneducated, and don’t have much to lose.

        Don’t believe me? Go hop over to any prepping forum under the sun. There will be a kooky minority there who wear a tinfoil hat 24/7.

        In my mind, this is the radical element that is the mirror of the radical left Statists, like that woman in Texas who admitted to calling the cops on open carryers because she didn’t like it.

        I wish we could have more open and rational conversation about how people in general just suck. :/

        1. avatar John G. says:

          I don’t think that people suck. In general most of humanity is pretty good, although from time to time you run across an exception to the rule.

          No one should desire a civil war. I have too many friends from Mexico and Eastern Europe who have seen the bad times.

        2. avatar TheBear says:

          For the most part I agree with you…

          Including the fact that all the people who want a war of any type have never actually seen one.

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “I wish we could have more open and rational conversation about how people in general just suck. :/”

          By far the vast majority of people are OK people – it’s the noisy fringes that get the press.

  6. avatar Bob Watson says:

    Now that is one deluded anti civil rights extremist. Even Everytown for Gun Control would have trouble finding a place for this wannabe useful idiot. Her head is filled with visions of civil war and the wholesale slaughter of law abiding citizens. For all of our sakes, I hope she never gets to experience her fantasies being turned into reality.

    1. avatar joe says:

      a civil war would be devastating to both sides and the world. the winner would be working forever to try to rebuild. war is ugly anyway you look at it, it should be the last thing on everyone’s mind.

  7. avatar Jon in CO says:

    I would like to point out that there is a CTD ad on the top of her site. Irony at its finest.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      That advertisement is probably not on her site. Rather, you probably have visited Cheaper Than Dirt and your browser made that ad appear in that space because you have been to that business before.

      1. avatar publius2 says:

        heh, that’s it- I had same experience- Newsmax showing up, like it does in TTAG’s side bar. Not a surprise that a liberal like Madrak will take the conservative and gun owner friendly advertising money, while calling them teabaggers.

        1. avatar A samurai says:

          Everyone sees their own ads based on their browsing history.
          And the ad space isn’t paid for by TTAG. The ad space pays TTAG.
          If there is money flowing in any direction here, it’s flowing from the liberal ad to the conservative website. BUT, you analysis is too simplistic. The money is really flowing from the liberal company that wants the ad, into a non-affiliated company that targets and places the ads (along with hundreds of other companies that pay the marketing firm to get their ads out like CTD), to the website conservative website who agrees to host the ad space for money.
          Thats Capitalism. Not politics, or irony. Please try not to mix them up.

    2. avatar A samurai says:

      Ads on websites are targeted at you by the cookies in your browser history. Everyone sees their own ads based on their browsing history.

  8. avatar blahpony says:

    I’m waiting for the review of that bullpup long barreled pistol from the picture.

    1. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

      i thought the door chain was in stalled on the in side not the out…

      1. avatar Yossarian says:

        Actually, the door chain is to keep her locked in. And the Eviction notice on the door symbolizes her “mental self-eviction” from reality.

    2. avatar S.CROCK says:

      That is an interesting design with the trigger guard attached to the magazine when there an actual pistol grip at the rear.

  9. avatar esitue says:

    Is she another 30YO college student? Maybe we should notify the FBI, or just notify the FBI on the GP of hate speech and implied threats against a specific class of citizen due to their beliefs

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      I’m sure the NSA has already taken care of that: Potentially violent extremist with a pretend gun and hand grenade ranting about a Rambo Complex scenario involving mass shooting.

      1. avatar JKnTX says:

        It’s nothing but a fishing expedition meant to toss out a baited stimulus and then measure and catalog the response to it.
        “She” is a massive idiot, could be a 20 year old North Korean girl in a bunker North of the DMZ for all us good fish know.

  10. avatar Hal says:

    I don’t know, at what point do we begin shooting statists?

    1. avatar B says:

      The funny fact is the time for both of those things are exactly the same.

  11. avatar Phil Wilson says:

    is it just me, or is this totalitarian rhetoric getting both more frequent and more open?

    It’s almost as if the statists are beginning to understand the america has had about enough of them.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      It’s not you Phil.
      As the 4th estate gets younger, it leans more left and more outspoken. instead of polite discourse, they resort to the above.
      Just my opinion, but I think it’ll get worse.

      1. avatar pod says:

        It’s scary indeed. The lack of deep political knowledge by people in their 20s or younger these days astounds me. If it can’t be summed up in a meme, they don’t want to read it.

        1. avatar CArd says:

          I hear you, and understand your fear. I have friends who are willfully ignorant of all things political because they think that no matter what happens, they’re voice doesn’t actually matter.

          There are some of us 20-somethings that care though, rest assured.

        2. avatar John G. says:

          Young people don’t watch enuf Faux News and they aren’t indoctrinated on all the juicy anti-Obama conspiracy theories.

        3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Young people don’t watch enuf Faux News and they aren’t indoctrinated on all the juicy anti-Obama conspiracy theories.”

          Do you own a gun and believe the fight for gun rights is a worthy one?

          Because you sure do post a lot of irrelevant nonsense trying bait folks here trying to have real discussions.

          I mean, if you don’t own a gun and/or are a grabber, it’s cool…just be up front about it and do try to be on-topic.

          You sure do lower the Signal To Noise ratio with this off-the-wall garbage that comes out of nowhere.

          I’m aware I’m not the first to point this out…

    2. avatar BradN says:

      It’s not just you. I have been accused of being a literal murderer for supporting the 2nd amendment and owning firearms. In their minds there is no difference what so ever between a mass killer and us. It’s actually getting quite disturbing.

      1. avatar CArd says:

        I’m thinking that was right around Newtown? I know for sure I had a facebook “friend” call all gun-owners murderers right around then.

  12. avatar Matt G says:

    “So what line has to be crossed…” I suppose that line would be when she bares arms and crosses it. I love it when these types ask someone else to risk their lives fighting their cause.

    1. avatar B says:

      Thats *ideally* why in a purely theoretical environment, we should win. The people who would be required to implement their will is us because they wouldn’t want to get their hands dirty. This isn’t Russia or China with a history of passive serfdom, our armies are largely composed of the very people they ideologically hate, and that is a really nice buffer to have when some psycho orders troops to fire on civilians.

      Theory gets a bit screwed up though once they build up their own civilian armies (DHS.)

  13. avatar Jm R says:

    You’re going to come for us. With what, pray tell? I’ve heard other antis echo similar thoughts. “we oughta just kill all those crazy gun nuts!” Well we have the guns and you don’t. So how well do you think that’s going to work?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Vulcan mind meld. And Jedi mind tricks.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Usually with their cars. We’ve had them threaten to run us down.

  14. avatar BDub says:

    As with an earlier comment on another topic I submit this is more bravado and backbone that exists only as long as they remain convinced of the illusion that the government and the majority have their backs. How these talking heads rant and range, and purport to direct and aim coercive authority to their ends – the little despots play at wielding the very chain that holds their own necks. Ignore them, they are impotent.

    1. avatar esitue says:

      That’s what ‘They’ said about Hitler in the early 1920’s and the Spanish Communists, Italian Fascists, and the Japanese Empire in the 1930’s.

      1. avatar BDub says:

        Are you equating the threat from this writer to that of a Hitler, or Mussolini? Really. I think this one and those like her are safe to ignore.

      2. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

        She may not be individually as dangerous, but her and her like are what empowered Obama who is every bit as dangerous, and in my opinion, as evil as any of the 20th century tyrants. The Spanish communists, Italian fascists and certainly Hitler didn’t just get there own their own. They had their cadre of useful idiots to help sell their message.

  15. avatar Mad Max says:

    What is she going to do if the “assholes” win the war because a large number of LEOs and military side with them?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Cry and stamp her little feet.

      And we’ll all feel sad.

  16. avatar Shwiggie says:

    It would be just as absurd for the government to garner the looney left into gas chambers by virtue of their dogged pursuit of destroying our economy, remaking our culture, and devaluing our international standing. But I’m sure that hasn’t entered her pathetic calculations. The government that can slaughter a segment of its citizenry for standing up for its supposedly guaranteed rights can annihilate another for the same reason. When the 2nd is gone, the 1st will have no leg on which to stand.

  17. avatar dlj95118 says:

    …wow. I just dipped my toe into the comments section of the above mentioned site, and…wow – – – just, “wow”. Vehement, hate-filled, screeds. I’ve never been “wished” to death before. A scary place, it is. A very, very scary place.

    1. avatar esitue says:

      Holder finds it soothing

  18. avatar Nick says:

    Use the link for her article and look at the comments section. The antis arrogance and bigotry is just astounding!

  19. avatar Accur81 says:

    Ms. Medrak is clearly not aware of the consequences of a civil or a revolutionary war – particularly if she has no weapons to participate with.

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Yup. She’s clearly not thinking very far down the consequence trail.

      Civil wars and revolutions are not fought by nice, clean rules.

  20. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Read her website. She is begging for donations for a $1200 copay so she doesn’t have to limp anymore. It actually hurts to laugh so hard at the thought of her so tough . . . .

    From the suburbs of Philly no less. I am sure if some of my homies from North Philly showed up she would sing a different tune

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      https://www.linkedin.com/pub/susie-madrak/4/694/4b5

      so she is basically a 60 yr old washed up blogger who is begging for spare change online to support her pathetic existence. To her credit, she calls Obamacare crap. Oh, and it looks like she is having mortgage and other financial problems. The $$ she is begging for, I keep that much in cash in the gun safe. i guess i could help her. or not. wouldn’t want to contaminate her. Ironic, eh.

      I do rather enjoy the notion she is enduring constant pain.

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        http://susiemadrak.com/2014/06/20/fund-drive-7/

        i cannot stop laughing. gotta go smoke another good cigar and drink some good bourbon.

        1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

          but can afford to drive an Audi? That’s a typical liberal http://susiemadrak.com/2014/06/13/friday-the-13th/

        2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

          here is the basis for her irrational fear: http://susiemadrak.com/2014/06/09/road-rage/

        3. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

          guess being a liberal blogger doesn’t pay well, eh? http://susiemadrak.com/2014/02/17/fucking-mercury-retrograde/

        4. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

          even more pathetic: http://susiemadrak.com/2014/01/16/desperado-2/

          this post tells you everything you need to know

        5. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Wow. So she lives alone (bet she has a cat), and is a prototypical “cager” who stereotypes and doesn’t handle confrontation at all. A real prize package. If that happened to any rider in the DC area she’d be looking for a new windshield, not shaking and crying because someone was going to hit her with a lugie. A real liberal milksop, I’d say.

        6. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

          well, she is ready to be an MDA chapter president: http://susiemadrak.com/2013/11/28/good-morning-3/

        7. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          Seems like you’re getting your schadenfreude on.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        Susie seems to have a hard time holding down a job (or relevant job).

  21. avatar Rabbi says:

    Only a domestic terrorist would consider such a thing

  22. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    So her plan to end gun violence is mass democide with guns? Good thinking.

    Armed citizens outnumber the military and police. The military and police are also citizens and I feel many would disobey an order to kill Americans. We would have a 2nd “shot heard around the world” but I think if she got what she wanted, she would soon realize the mistake Admiral Tojo learned after bombing Pearl Harbor. They would awaken a “sleeping giant”.

  23. avatar Craig says:

    @ Ft. Worth Colt Guy, it was Yamamoto who said the sleeping giant quote.

    1. avatar bastiches says:

      “@ Ft. Worth Colt Guy, it was Yamamoto who said the sleeping giant quote.”

      Probably neither said it. It’s a spurious quote with nothing found in print to connect it with Yamamoto.

  24. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    @craig you are correct. Thank you for the correction. I apologize.

    1. avatar JimmyDelta says:

      Sorry to pick nits, but you’re both wrong. That line was never spoken in real life. It was merely a line from “Tora! Tora! Tora!” that was repeated in “Pearl Harbor”.

      1. avatar bobmcd says:

        I thought it was Belushi in Animal House.

        1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          That was the Germans.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “I thought it was Belushi in Animal House.”

          No, he said, “Toga! Toga! Toga!”
          😉

  25. avatar Don says:

    The vast majority that she’d have do the shooting are actually us.

  26. avatar Joe R. says:

    They can stand up to the gun nuts all they want, but they’ll have to do lots of low-cap mag changes. If they sic the gov’t on us, then, remember the ______________. (your last-stand here)

  27. avatar Accur81 says:

    My response:

    Ah, the gun violence epidemic (when non-suicide firearm related homicides are decreasing) and the continued desire to punish responsible Americans for the actions of mass murderers. Let me know how well the massive levels of gun control has worked out for Mexico or the south side of Chicago whilst sipping your lattes and chatting in your liberal progressive echo chambers.

    Meanwhile, I have a response to the next Adam Lanza, James Holmes, or Elliot Rodger that is far more tactically effective than your cell phones and snarky emails: a Glock 23 loaded with 14 Winchester PDX 180 grain JHPs. If you wish, you are more than welcome to insist on calling an armed stranger to protect you. That is your choice. I would simply advise you that many have died for the lack of an effective weapon while waiting for the typical 5-10 minute police response time.

  28. avatar Rich Grise says:

    Between the gun nuts and the anti-gun nuts, why is it always only the antis who advocate actually killing people?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Well, there is James Yeager. Although he’s probably more of a plain nut than a gun nut.

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        that presumes you allocate humanity to POTUS

    2. avatar Tom says:

      Its very rare to get a gun control supporter to admit openly that they would support armed violence with guns to enforce bans. They see no hypocrisy in claiming to be opposed to gun violence and using guns to enforce their agenda

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        “They see no hypocrisy in claiming to be opposed to gun violence and using guns to enforce their agenda”

        That is quite simple actually … because the state is almighty god and by definition anything the state does is good.

    3. Same thought ran across my mind. Perfectly acceptable to kill off an entire segment of the population who is exercising the RKBA. I can’t point to anyone who has said we should just kill all anti-2A folks because “ANTI-GUN!”

  29. avatar Joe R. says:

    “The question is hereby asked, and answer demanded: How long will America last? [10].
    This is an unknown, and assertions can be guaranteed by no one. However the existence of
    America requires not only the desire by its incorporated societies, to defend it but by THE
    VERY MEANS. Therefore, possession and retention of arms (as a right) IS HEREBY
    GUARANTEED to outlive even the idea of America.” TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012, pg. 39

    “The lesson harkens back to Carl Von Clausewitz: you are the commander that should not
    be caught wearing the ‘dress rapier’ [dress sword] when the enemy [while feigning “peace”]
    takes up ‘sharp sword’. Again the idea is expandable from societal pairs to incorporated pairs in
    families, towns, states, and countries [16].
    Let us not yet depart too far from the notion of implied individual obligation, with regard
    to the eradication of perceived threat. As a slightly tangential notion (to threat, but not to a
    society’s reaction to it), in translation to governance, and to the idea of the person in the circle
    (Figure 8 above); often, in the actions of the governors of the U.S. republic, it is remarked that
    silence [among the governed] equals consent to the actions of the governor.
    This is not so however. Silence can as easily, and perhaps even more readily, indicate
    equal incredulity. And in their silence, in an effort to shade mounting answer to the perceived
    threat; individuals are drawing swords.
    Silence, you will remember, is what you receive a little of, from the firing squad, before
    you receive an eternity of it.
    Now continuing with, or returning to, the idea of self-protection (security), and the means
    to it, and returning to the idea of firearms. Too often (in the U.S.) the possession of firearms is
    relegated in “rights” to the second amendment “The right of the people to keep and bear arms
    and the creation of a well regulated militia” [17] and the furtherance of the creation of the
    new Union [what has become the United States of America].
    While supportive of the notion, it is not the source of [the] right nor even the description
    of its source.
    Clearly the language of the Second Amendment follows from the Federalist Papers [as
    evidenced, however minutely, by the direct duplication of the phraseology used, and as also
    MORE directly following from the Virginia Declaration of Rights [18], from which it appears to
    be so closely tied, where Hamilton requests the populace of the, then, “American States” to
    accept the creation of a mutually supportive “regulated militia” (and a national army) to protect
    the preceding request for a compilation of State interests into a Federal entity [union] as a
    projection of unified power.
    Hamilton, however clearly defers to the existing notion that men will defend themselves
    and the liberty of those among them that presumably support the liberty of the former. While he
    eloquently offers the yoke of linked society, he defers to the rights of the States, which, again, by
    directly quoting the Virginia Declaration of Rights, rest squarely on the notion that the buy-in
    falls to ‘all-hands’ and to the ‘last-man.’ Each being beholden to the other in society.
    Hamilton was also clearly, absolutely, and unequivocally deferring to the notion of
    unalienable Society. Hamilton calls for the allowance of the coalition of societal agreements, in
    the pairings as States, to create something not-wholly separate from Society. His request for
    acquiescence to, and contribution to, a combined-force, that was intent on protecting that which
    was mutually supportive, was merely a framework for incorporated societies.
    It is clearly not the intent or the supposition of Hamilton that even this force should [or
    could/would] avoid being abolished by the individual, when and to the extent that it failed to
    protect the gained and earned blessing of liberty, or when wielded in a direction, by the
    regulating party that attempted to dissolve Society [19] Thereby, if any party’s claim is such
    that: “I cannot defend you until you have surrendered the means by which you can defend
    yourself;” only the first half of the statement is true.” TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012, pgs. 44-46.

  30. avatar mirgc says:

    I’m just going to keep asking the gun-control advocates on these boards: what do you hate more; the criminals who intentionally hurt other people? Or the gun-owners trying to stay within the law, and who do not intentionally hurt other people?

    Or something along those lines.

    1. avatar brentondadams says:

      The left has a long history of fighting the people fighting evil. Communists, terrorists, gang bangers. Pick you group all the back to the turn of 20th century.

  31. avatar Ralph says:

    at what point does the federal government literally go to war with its own citizens

    The federal government went to war with its citizens at Waco and Ruby Ridge in 1992 and 1993. The retaliation was more horrible than the government ever expected.

    I don’t think there will be a next time. Not for a long time anyway. The fact is, I think that the specter of Waco, Ruby Ridge and the Murrah Building loomed large at the Bundy Ranch.

    So, Ms. Madrak, be careful what you wish for.

  32. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    We’ll be sure to use your own publicly published words to convict you during the next “Nuremberg” trials, Ms. Madrak. Your name has been added to the rolls of “domestic enemies.”

  33. avatar NWBob says:

    Stupid is as stupid does, or writes. I always thought; at what point do we start taking out tyrants, for which this amendment was directed? The gun owning crowd has shown great restraint. If the left’s assertion of us were true, wouldn’t there be lots of dead gun control nuts?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “If the left’s assertion of us were true, wouldn’t there be lots of dead gun control nuts?”

      Absolutely spot on!

    2. avatar Bob says:

      “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” — from The Declaration of Independence.

      Yes, we have shown a lot of restraint, but we are approaching a point where we will accept no more “abuses and usurpations”. Could be in less than ten years, or it could be in less than two. Depends on the actions of the Government.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        The R’s and Tea partiers will sweep the midterms, we’ll have two years of waffling and gridlock, the R’s will find a candidate that will essentially run on pro-2A and NO AMNESTY, and we’ll have about two years of relative calm, until the Rs show their true stripe as the Reich wing of the Statist bird, then we’re all schrod.

        A lot of pro-2A people are also bloodthirsty warmongers, who will cheerlead as the Rs double down on the insane racist War on (some) Drugs, and they’ll nuke Iran or something.

  34. avatar Jon says:

    Tell her to give it her best shot!!

    1. avatar Couger390 says:

      She probably couldn’t hit anything anyway!

  35. avatar pod says:

    Reading those comments proved to be quite interesting. The antis, and even the fence-sitters, tended to always fall back on the same tired tropes with regards to people who own firearms. While gun owners aren’t “oppressed”, the spectrum of people who actually own guns and enjoy shooting would surprise the if they looked.

    But they won’t, since it would shatter their “old fat white guy” stereotyping.

  36. avatar Bob20 says:

    Wow. Her statement proves to We The People that the forefathers were geniuses for inserting the 2nd amendment into the Constitution. I wonder if these progressives even realize what they are saying or have a clue where their ideology leads.

    1. avatar Gunnut says:

      They don’t, that would require critical thinking

  37. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Common sense will tell us that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all
    others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of
    friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into
    slavery…. Wherefore, if we must here-after protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves?
    Why do it for another?” ( Paine Common Sense pg. 47)

  38. avatar Joe R. says:

    Praemonitius / Praemunitous
    [forewarned/forearmed]

  39. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “… at what point does the federal government literally go to war with its own citizens?” — Ms. Madrak

    Newsflash Ms. Madrak: the federal government is already at war with its own citizens. Of utmost importance: the federal government started it years and years ago.

  40. avatar Gunnut says:

    Can I get a BJ with that ‘killing’?

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      and y’all call me a pig for trolling on Shannon? At least she doesn’t walk with a limp and pathetically live in a cave

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        I rest my case: http://crooksandliars.com/heather/susie-madrak-dr-show-republicans-and-media

        sorry, but a case of viagra and a fifth of Jack Daniels cannot help here

  41. avatar benny says:

    The stupid flows freely in those comments…
    A lot of name calling and not a lot of logic.

  42. avatar ihatetrees says:

    Slightly off topic…
    A theme related to Ms. Mandrak’s post repeated by many progressives: the 2nd Amendment cannot realistically protect against tyrannical government over-reach given the disparity in forces between The G and 2A nutjobs people.
    While I pray that such scenarios are never tested, having cops and/or military grunts act against honest 2A citizens will probably result in widespread disobedience. When news of that spreads, then statist / progressives have a much larger problem.

  43. avatar Chris says:

    Is their trust in the government so great that they just assume that gun owners would lose? What happens when the government goes to war with its citizens and it loses? As a member of the armed services that’s not a fight I’m fighting.

  44. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Here’s the hook, also from the top of her homepage:

    Thanks to the three people who donated — that covers one and a half $50 co-pays!

    Please help me get physical therapy so I can walk again without limping. Yes, I know, you have your own problems. Believe me, I know. And I’m lucky enough to have a job. But it’s not enough to cover $1200 in co-pays, and they have to be paid up front.

    I can pay some of that. But I can’t pay all, or even half. So please donate so I can walk again. Thanks!

    So she’s trolling for cash. I’m SHOCKED! Maybe the Mighty Midget can bail a fellow fascist out.

  45. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Namely, at what point does the federal government literally go to war with its own citizens? after all, it’s not as if gun control advocates were flooding the White House switchboard, screaming to ‘take them out!’ So why don’t the gun control statists directly try to take out Libertarian type folks? Why do they keep trying to have the government do the job that they are seem reluctant to do?

    1. avatar JR says:

      They worship at the alter of government…The State is their god.

      So, this whole rant could be interpreted as a prayer.

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Because, under all the layers of “feelgood” and hubris, in the furthest, most fundamental recesses of themselves, they are simpering cowards.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        I think you mean “whimpering.” To “simper” is to “smile or gesture in an affectedly coquettish, coy, or ingratiating manner.”

  46. avatar Richard says:

    Is she willing to lead the charge, from the front line? I doubt it. It really makes you wonder though about their true motives. They’re not keeping them hidden very well what with their shrillness level rising. Methinks they will be the ones to set off the powder keg. With her rant, does it seem more likely that some of these mass shootings might not be prodded a bit? I dunno; maybe my tinfoil is wrapped too tight.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Most of the spree shooters have been rabid leftists.

      1. avatar John says:

        A popular meme, but not one without a lot of evidence.

        They haven’t been leftists or rightists, they’re wackoists.

  47. avatar Marine 03 says:

    Hi NSA, how are you this evening? Still reading, huh? Wow and my tax money paid for you to do just that. We have people on the inside too NSA…never forget that boys (ever hear of one Edward Snowden?….oops….looks like I hit a nerve!). Goodbye for now but remember that it is WE who are watching you.

  48. avatar John says:

    “You know, settle the burning question about whose is bigger.”

    As I frequently tell the gun-phobes, they’re not the ones joining the police and military. They’re not the ones who own guns. Who do they think would win? The people actually fighting. These people have built a cult around the veneration of “nonviolence” and positive change through pointless petitions. I’m worried that their type will push the really radical right wing too far, and a severely repressive and regressive conservative right wing takes over after the civil war. Something like the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Shiites in Iran, but posing as fundamentalist Christian.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “… severely repressive and regressive conservative right wing takes over after the civil war.”

      Or after the freakin’ election.

    2. avatar Juliesa says:

      Oh please. Only the right wing has any respect for the Bill of Rights anymore.

      1. avatar John says:

        By their definition of “respect”, which isn’t everyones.

      2. avatar John G. says:

        Absolutely. Where is Joseph McCarthy when you need him?

      3. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Well, some of it anyway. Sometimes it’s like the ACLU counts 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,meh, while the Reich wing counts 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2.

  49. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    Ms. Madrak has no comprehension of the law of unintended consequences whatsoever. She and her ilk are really itching for a fight, so long as she and hers’s don’t have to get their hands dirty and as long as it’s only their hired hands that do the killing and dying. The POTG, not so much. We know, all too well, how horrifying a real civil war would be. She and her fellow travelers don’t understand what a 4th generation, asymmetrical war would look like in the American context. And that’s really the frightening part, the true horror that they so unwittingly wish to unleash completely eludes their feeble understanding of the world and the bedrock principles that so many of her fellow citizens hold dear.

    More and more, each day and hour, it looks like there’s going to be a real fight not too far off on the horizon. It is imperative that we who hold the principles of the Founder’s dear steel ourselves and resolve to win this exestential battle at any cost.

    1. avatar Greg in Allston says:

      I meant to say, and this is where responding on my iPhone often messes me up, is this;

      “And that’s really the frightening part, the true horror that they so unwittingly wish to unleash completely eludes their feeble understanding of the world and the bedrock principles that so many of her fellow citizens hold dear. ”

      Where is says “her” fellow citizens, I meant to say “our” fellow citizens.

      1. avatar Trigger Warning says:

        I think you got it right the first time. “Her” fellow citizens are those who share her world view. The rest of us are untermensch

    2. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

      “She and her fellow travelers don’t understand what a 4th generation, asymmetrical war would look like in the American context. And that’s really the frightening part, the true horror that they so unwittingly wish to unleash completely eludes their feeble understanding of the world and the bedrock principles that so many of her fellow citizens hold dear.”

      Actually, Greg, I’ve got to disagree. We don’t know what what it would really look like. What we do know is that it will look much worse than what we imagine. We know that it will be so bad that it is something resorted to as the true last resort after all other political and Constitutional means (e.g. Article V) have been exhausted and we have made sufficient justification to posterity for our moral need and rightness.

      If we don’t do the latter, we will end up like the French rather than our forefathers.

  50. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    “Perlstein doesn’t mention the big honkin’ elephant in the room: Namely, at what point does the federal government literally go to war with its own citizens?”

    Weren’t we the crazy ones when we said the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment was to fight a tyrannical government?

    The opposition is always calling us blood-thirsty, but they are the ones always calling for blood.

  51. avatar publius2 says:

    Wow, crooks and liars is quite the lefty cesspool, isn’t it?

    Here is the standard note above comments section:
    “We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.”

    Yet, here is assistant to the editor Suzie keeping it classy- her own words in the lead sentences on three articles, chosen randomly from her feed:

    “This is, as Joe Biden would say, a big fucking deal”
    (ironic use of the “appeal to authority” fallacy citing Double Barrel Joe)

    “How refreshing when someone calls out a teabagger…”
    (homosexual slang for a particular kind of oral sex, popularized by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, pre-outing, to marginalize elderly conservative voters)

    “When will the gun-huggers and ammosexuals get…”

    (stylish…sexual insults for those she doesn’t agree with…)

    Pretty sad, actually, when you skim her “my so called life” category to get a picture of a miserable, sick, overweight, elderly feminist free lance writer, divorced, struggling to pay minor car repair bills and craigslist furniture, blegging for the rent, living alone in a bad neighborhood in Philly,

    who even her fans point out spends way too much time obsessing on Fox News and the attractive women there, and obsessing about guns.

    1. avatar publius2 says:

      PS: pointing out here that my comment above is “waiting moderation”,
      since TTAGs language filters stop the publishing of the exact quotes by Suzie Madrak at C&L. (cheap use of obscenity in the effort to be relevant= sad Suzie)

      Not that I care, only mention it as an ironic reminder of the left’s talk/whine on civility, vs their action in deed and words.

  52. avatar publius2 says:

    In other words, keep it chilly, POTG.

    The left has about run out of stamina, having long ago abandoned the facts, and ethics, in favor of the narrative, and flyover America is not buying their stale goods.

    Its a lot easier to understand where they are coming from, with the over the top rhetoric, if you ascribe it to projection, and in Suzie’s case, a need to scratch that itch…

    “These assholes want a civil war so bad, they can taste it.
    Some days, I wonder: Should we let them, and just get it over with? You know, settle the burning question about whose is bigger.”

    1. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

      And this is one of the big reasons why I so frequently appeal to civility on our part. I remember the old adage that an armed society is a polite society. We are not the ones who look bad when this type of rant becomes more mainstream from the progressive left. We are not the ones whose credibility suffers. We are not the ones who come off as irrational.

      On the other hand we are the ones with the advantage when these leftists make the ideologically fatal mistake of conflating civility with weakness or lack of firm resolve.

  53. avatar John Smith says:

    Is it just me, or is it odd to have the trigger in front of the magazine, rather than in front of the grip?

  54. avatar neiowa says:

    The eunuch in chief and his lackies don’t have the nads to confront the jihadis in iraqistan or anywhere else. But will he/they make war on the “local” scofflaws and political malcontents? Certainly will if it is politically expedient and/or they see the need to prove to someone that they have one (to scare the restless into conformity)..

  55. avatar PavePusher says:

    Her and Mike Malloy. The bat-shit insane is strong with the Anti Loons.

  56. avatar ablevins says:

    Does she want the response of the armed people to Obama’s attack on the people? Lets see 125,000 elected Dim oficials and Donkey party operatives whose names are online, being the active prey of 100 million large caliber long guns not at government facilities but at their homes all across the country, after a couple of weeks of single shots at the gun grabbers , will the ones who are left huddled in police and military bases want to surrender?
    Just read the five British Generals memoirs who fought in the colonies in the 1770s,they thought that their service in America
    Was HELL on Earth – far worst than their six decades of service for the Crown accross the planet, was far better than facing the Yankees guns. They lost more troops to snipers getting to and from battles than they ever lost to combat!

  57. avatar ablevins says:

    Oh by the way these 30ish Statist Obama drones from 21 to
    31 are now paying 50% of their incomes to pay off their College loans given to them by the Messiah Obama Hisself!!!

  58. avatar G says:

    I can draw a better gun left-handed and blindfolded…

  59. avatar CV76 says:

    You guys need to go over to her cute little story site and read the ‘off their meds’ nut jobs commenting about killing us, etc etc. there are a chit load of looney toons next door….

    1. avatar Lolinski says:

      I always find those comments funny.

      I mean, how are you going to kill/torture me if I am armed and you are not?

  60. avatar Doug Knaus says:

    I do not understand the confiscation crowd’s obsession with penis size.
    To use a firearms analogy, a skilled (and brave) rifleman with a Marlin 39 and a brick of .22LR could successfully wear out many someones who thought they could point their .338 Lupuas in kinda the right direction and slap the trigger.
    However, THIS is true:
    Men who can’t drive get cars with more horsepower.
    Men who can’t shoot get bigger guns.
    Men who can’t make love get them little blue pills.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “Men who can’t make love get them little blue pills.”

      I maintain that we could solve all of the country’s problems overnight by just replacing all the hardon pills with cyanide.

      I love the legend of Lady Mo.

  61. avatar PavePusher says:

    Her and Mike Malloy, bat-crap insane Anti Loons-of-a-feather.

  62. avatar Brian in Seattle says:

    I have been entertaining myself making snarky remarks on this article’s page. I encourage you all to do the same.

  63. avatar Shaun says:

    This is very typical of liberals. Very violent, sadistic people who will fight dirty and show their true colors if you don’t worship their sad little pathetic opinions.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      That’s why they want us disarmed – they know how much they’re hated, and since they would have no qualms about murdering someone they disapprove of, they assume everybody would.

      1. avatar Nighthawk says:

        I think it’s more like they want the ability to murder those who they disapprove of without any risk.

  64. avatar tread-back says:

    This point has been made before in the comments, but I will just reiterate in what I feel is a more succinct and catchier phrase that I use when gun grabbers threaten us with confiscation.

    “When they are knocking on our doors, we will be knocking on yours.”

  65. avatar Mark Jackaman says:

    At what point do the gun nuts shoot? Is a pre-emptive strike OK and does Doug MacArthur get to kill some more veterans?

  66. avatar jonolan says:

    I think the more pertinent question is when do Americans wake up and become the nightmare the gun-grabbers already claim we are? We’re doing the time; we might as do the “crime.”

  67. avatar Full Cleveland says:

    Susie Madrak only survives because of the right to free speech and acknowledging her work only provides the views of Feinstein, Boxer and Clinton to appear centrist. Her articles do not warrant response.

  68. avatar Gregolas says:

    Question RF: Was Madrak’s slavering rant a polemic, or a philippic? I’m leaning your way, but inquiring minds want to know.
    BTW, the level of her weapons ignorance is clear from her use of the redundancy, “armored tanks.” That’s all you need to notice before ignoring her completely.

  69. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

    “before we start mowing them down to make our point?”

    First off, holy smokes – and they say that we’re dangerous extremists? This lady is borderline insane.

    Let’s start with the “we”. Who exactly is she referring to? Is she herself planning on leading the bloodbath in which they “mow citizens down” in order to “make a point”?

    Who exactly is it that wants a war, Miss Psychopath?

    Phew. Talk about wackos. This lady takes the cake.

    1. avatar John G. says:

      Presumably she’s just another responsible gun owner. God forbid that anyone do any psychological testing or otherwise cause her not to own a gun. Right?

      1. avatar brentondadams says:

        Why would you presume that? Clearly she is unhinged, she tells us as much in her article.

        Maybe we need a ‘gun violence restraining order’? Someone call Barbara Boxer.

        1. avatar John G. says:

          But don’t true believing ammosexuals oppose that law?

          Let’s face it. There are unhinged on both extremes. But if you don’t stand for that “responsible gun owner” thing then the crazies on the left have as much right as the crazies on the right.

  70. avatar Javenis Mydaus says:

    At what point did these people start loving the government so much that they became blind to it’s abuses to the people? When did they start loving taxes so much that they ignore the fraud and waste of the government and start proclaiming it’s out duty to pay? They want guns gone because of violence yet promote guns and violence to take the guns from other citizens! Are they really blind to the Irony of these things?

  71. avatar Brandon says:

    There is no doubt in my mind, we would prevail! If it ever did com to what Ms. Madrak is yearning for. There are simply too many of us, and I believe they know that, how could they not? A very large portion of us are veterans, or even active duty/reserve who are already shown a willingness to give our lives for our way of life and our freedoms. We are trained, we are experienced, and we are always prepared, are you Ms. Madrak?

  72. avatar Steve says:

    Watch out for the drones. They have already been ‘tested’ against US citizens overseas.

  73. avatar Lee Green says:

    I posted in comments of the original article “Darlin’ you and your fascist thugs can start any time. We’re ready.”

  74. avatar Peter says:

    So she is all for Gun Violence, just as long as the victims are people she disagrees with.

  75. avatar Susie Madrak says:

    Hey, thanks for completely missing the point, since I’m a lifelong pacifist. What I was actually saying that there aren’t a lot of options to deal with people who defy the legal government — short of those that seem to inevitably lead to all-out violence, as we saw in Ruby Ridge and Waco. If you think I was advocating violence, you’re wrong.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      As a pacifist, what few options would you then propose?

    2. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “deal with people who defy the legal government”

      Nobody is defying the legal government. It’s all the unconstitutional lawlessness and arbitrary wielding of power without congressional oversight that we’re trying to combat.

      There is no Constitutional authorization for the War on (some) Drugs.
      There is no Constitutional authorization for the nanny state.
      There is no Constitutional authorization for the US Military to be Planetary Drunken Bully.
      There is no Constitutional authorization for the BLM land grabs.
      There is no Constitutional authorization for the Department of Homeland Security.
      There is no Constitutional authorization for the NSA, and spying on citizens is expressly forbidden.
      And infringing on the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is expressly forbidden.

    3. avatar LC says:

      and not everyone on the pro-gun pro civil rights side is necessarily agreeing with bundy or disagreeing with the BLM in this case.

      The issue of the feds having too much land is a whole other problem to be solved via political means, which bundy hasn’t done.

      I cant sympathize with bundy. And I personally DO know people who went down to Nevada and I let them know how stupid and misguided they were to do that. Violent and seditious? not even. Just misguided I think.

      If these types want to impress me, start defending OWS or same sex marriage protests.

    4. avatar Jay Williams says:

      Randy Weaver defied the “legal government”? The feds set him up, then murdered his wife. How is this relevant?

  76. avatar kap says:

    I’ll bet She’s a Pro Abortion gun-o-phile, appears to me she is willing to shoot us, gas us, machine gun us, cut our throats
    all in the name of What! the Shrink would have a field day with this lady! I’ll bet the Goose stepping ATF would hire her in a heartbeat to take out the kids at Waco

  77. avatar John Dennis says:

    Liberals like madrak want to mow us down? Hell, they can’t even hit the side of a barn at 10 paces.. Good luck with that.

    1. avatar John G. says:

      I wouldn’t say it’s “liberals” that want to “mow” anyone down. I’d say that she is an extreme case and pretty tightly wound.

      What she does seem to be saying is that the Guv’mint shouldn’t back down. And my suspicions are that, sooner or later, the Feds will have their way with Bundy.

      But don’t kid yourself. There are plenty of liberals with military backgrounds or who otherwise can handle a gun. Why anyone would think that gun ownership is some sort of exclusively rightwing club is amusing.

  78. avatar gun papa says:

    Funny, I am law abiding in every aspect of my life. I am living just as the founders intended. Freedom loving. Live and let live. I have yet a call for an attack upon my fellow Americans by the heavy boot of government. I would debate who is the real threat here.

  79. avatar xyz says:

    good time to go off topic on the topic of rogue gov’t: my grandfather left Morgenthau, Russia with his family when he was 5 years old…you’ve probably never heard of Morgenthau (on the Volga) because it was razed (fire) to the ground by the communists, who basically rounded up all the guns in the village, shot all the men, loaded their bodies into their (animal driven) carts and lit everything. This was a town of German farmers originally invited by Catherine The Great in the 1700s. The communists wanted them, and every able bodied male in-country to serve in their red army, but as you can imagine the German farmers were having none of that…some made it out, some didn’t. Considering my grandfather’s luck, I’m lucky to be here.

  80. avatar Susie Madrak says:

    Look: The post was in response to another article, chiding the federal government for backing down at the Bundy ranch. My response was to show that there were no good options here, and mentioned Ruby Ridge and Waco as examples of government overreaction. Do I wish the feds hadn’t backed away at the Bundy ranch? Yes. It’s dangerous when random citizens start making their own laws. Do I think the feds should have gone in and killed everyone? Of course not.

    But it’s also a problem when so many armed people claim they want a revolution. At what point do we simply stop enforcing laws so they won’t start shooting? That’s a hell of a way to run a country.

    It’s very surreal to be defending myself against the idea that I want to kill people when I do not.

    1. avatar Jim says:

      Ma’am,
      Thank you for the clarification, and thank you for your willingness to engage in dialogue.

    2. avatar Steve says:

      Part of the issue is that we are not so many armed people. We are a large group associated by ownership of firearms. When one lumps me in with criminals, mentally ill folks, or the next revolution I am done an injustice. Our ‘group’ is done an injustice. When do we stop enforcing laws? When do we start enforcing laws and stop discussing ad nauseum how to regulate honest citizens that want nothing more than to attend to their daily lives, their family and their communities.

    3. avatar CV76 says:

      Words have consequences, Madame. How wonderful life can be when you care for your fellow Americans instead of vilifying them and advocating for their death. Have you actually read the comments from the left on your article? It’s beyond the acceptable norms for a self-governing society. I encourage you to ready and reply to the filth. It is unbecoming of Americans to treat anyone that way.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        She engaged in some of the comments.

    4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      First of all…hey, thanks a bunch for coming over and hanging out with us. This is pretty cool.

      Couple of points regarding your post message above.

      “Do I wish the feds hadn’t backed away at the Bundy ranch? Yes. “

      Is that in general true, or just in this case? I mean…what if it were so clear cut that the feds were acting extra-Constitutionally and blatantly illegally? Would that be a justification to resist them and cause them to back down?

      Food for thought on this point: “First Amendment Zones”

      “It’s dangerous when random citizens start making their own laws. “

      That is not at all what happened in the Bundy case. No one “made their own laws.”

      Perhaps I am just misunderstanding you, but it seems to me like you are accepting that government is, by default, “right” in every situation.

      At issue here is “who is government?” It is SUPPOSED to be US, not some faceless bureaucracy that serves itself. So, at the risk of sounding simplistic, I’m not sure exactly how, if we were operating Constitutionally, we DON’T “make our own laws.”

      The BLM situation out west is very, complicated. This was not a clear cut, “He robbed a bank; he broke a law.”

      “Do I think the feds should have gone in and killed everyone? Of course not.”

      I am very encouraged to read that. But do you not see that that is EXACTLY what it looks like they went in there to do?

      They had marksman in position (like Ruby Ridge), they had First Amendment Zones (like Waco) and they began arresting and jailing people without charging them with a crime.

      Please think about that last one for a few minutes. They arrested, and placed into jail, a US Citizen without a charge. The Fourth Amendment was under direct attack.

      “But it’s also a problem when so many armed people claim they want a revolution.”

      What the vast, hugest majority of us want is to simply be left alone to live our lives. Those of us in that group are not criminals; we do not seek to victimize our fellows. We have jobs, families, goals and dreams.

      For that vast majority of us…the LAST thing we want is to see our nation ripped part in war.

      The problem is, however, that we are NOT left alone to pursue our lives. That’s where the anger arises.

      ” At what point do we simply stop enforcing laws so they won’t start shooting?”

      When the laws are immoral and stand in stark contradiction to the founding principles of this nation as codified in the Constitution, the laws should not be enforced. There should not be a law that can fine me 20,000 for not filling out a form, for example (thankfully, that one got defeated a few years ago, but such a bill was being considered).

      There are a lot of laws on the books that are nothing more than “crimes against bureaucracy.” There is no real victim, as in say robbery or assault. These fiat crimes are not “crimes” at all. Consider that in Connecticut, an object that was legal to own in 2013 is now a felony to possess UNLESS one fills out a form.

      How is that sort of think benefiting society or any free individual?

      “That’s a hell of a way to run a country.”

      Well, that’s EXACTLY how the founders intended THIS country to be “run.”

      I respectfully suggest that you re-read the Federalist Papers and the writings of Thomas Jefferson. The words these men wrote, on the heels of an incredibly violent and bloody period of war to win the right to write them, meant something to them. They were not a joke or a punchline.

      Your questions and comments are good ones that we can use to have good discussion. I am sorry that your article seems to have been taken out of the context in which you meant it.

    5. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Earlier you wrote, What I was actually saying that there aren’t a lot of options to deal with people who defy the legal government . But now you have written, My response was to show that there were no good options here .

      I’m confused. Do you assert that the options are few or none? If you simply mean that there are few options and none of them good then please elaborate on what you believe those options to be.

    6. avatar Dave in SoCal says:

      Unfortunately, the problem with your “hey I was just saying there’s no good options” attempted walk back is this particular statement:

      “These assholes want a civil war so bad, they can taste it.

      Some days, I wonder: Should we let them, and just get it over with? You know, settle the burning question about whose is bigger.”

      Sure sounds like a non-pacifist “just have the government kill them and get it over with” position to me.

    7. avatar LC says:

      “At what point do we simply stop enforcing laws so they won’t start shooting?”

      You do realize that this is certainly not the case right?

      Despite the false accusations of “they’re getting away with it! those damned militia!”, they are in fact being investigated by the FBI right now for pointing weapons at feds (which is a big no no, and Im empathetic actually).

      You and your article (alongside crooksandliars) is vastly overstating the “problem”. There is a apparatus available for keeping theocratic, ultra-conservative nutjobs in check and to keep them from overthrowing the republic. Ironically, if there is going to be any hypothetical use of the 2nd amendment in this country for its intended purpose, it is going to be defending the republic from the likes of them.

      1. avatar Rob Crawford says:

        “There is a apparatus available for keeping theocratic, ultra-conservative nutjobs in check and to keep them from overthrowing the republic.”

        Beyond the fact that only a few hundred such people exist?

        Yeah, focus on the people the SPLC tells you are the danger, and ignore what the left is up to.

  81. avatar Chris says:

    It’s the new Progressive Liberal Democrat Motto

    “Comply or Die ! You are ordered to vote Democrat”

    1. avatar Andrea says:

      Amen.

  82. avatar squashpup says:

    Found her blog at the link above.

    She had a recipe for salmon with strawberry balsamic reduction and asparagus.

    I posted this:

    “Mmmm! What a delightful midsummer’s day repast! The melding of the sweet of the strawberry balsamic with the savory of the salmon is undoubtedly DIVINE. I simply MUST have the recipe!

    Tell me, did you enjoy this before or after deciding that millions of people should be mercilessly killed because they owned an object you don’t like?

    Oh, and what kind of wine would go well with the salmon?

    Interesting to see how a wannabe tyrant thinks. And eats. Thanks for the insight.”

  83. avatar MacBeth51 says:

    “When legitimately constituted state authority”
    “legitimately constituted”? Really? When the very existence of the organization is a violation of the Constitution?

  84. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    Some observations….

    1. Who is “we” ? Does she have a mouse with an AR-15 in her pocket? Otherwise should she not be saying when will THEY start shooting ? I mean she’s not going to be doing any of it.
    2. She thinks that a war against even 10% of the American people is really something that could be won? It’s not. Look at Waco, look at 9-11. Small groups where able to do damage to the state and to the economy. Forget targeting civilians. “They” know people will be shooting back and even though more “Gun nuts” may die than government employees I don’t see too many members of the federal employee unions lining up to take a bullet for her cause. Sure they are all for sending troops “over there” to fight. But when they fight over here the collateral damage is not going to be employees at a government building in Afghanistan. And don’t count on much support from the congress, all that campaign cash they depend on from Wall Street, Silicon Valley, big oil, etc will dry up dryer than Hillary Clinton’s Coochie on a hot day in Death Valley with a naked Rush Limbaugh. You think domestic
    Insurrection sells cars, houses, iPhones, etc? Remember the financial crisis following 9-11? This would make that look like a bull market.
    3. We have ALWAYS been in a Cold War with our government. Since the day the constitution was ratified. The fact that they are HOPELESSLY outnumbered and out gunned is the only thing that keeps it from going hot. The so called civil war lasted a long time and had the south not had a large population that was sympathetic ( slaves) to the north it would not have likely been possible. Even still huge freedoms where taken from the south and north that would not be tolerated today. If it was possible for the state to simply kill all te Americans who oppose it, it would have done it already. It’s not like any of our so called leaders have been so moral that they would not do that. The reason they “we” don’t shoot gun nuts is simple. They shoot back.

  85. avatar Rod says:

    Just wanted you to know, someone has marked your site as having malware. I’m pretty sure it’s someone trying to close your site down.

  86. avatar Susie Madrak says:

    Anyone who runs a website knows most people don’t read much past the headline. So despite your careful legalistic disclaimer, the fact is that people all over the internet now believe I’m urging the feds to shoot gun users. Not much integrity there (am I the only one who believes “thou shalt not bear false witness”?), since it’s not what I said at all.

    For what it’s worth, I was responding to an article saying the Obama administration shouldn’t have backed down at the Bundy Ranch. I was attempting to illustrate there aren’t many options between ignoring them and all out war. I was even trying to show how crazy the idea was by exaggeration.

    Sorry the nuance was lost on so many of you, but I’m used to my own readers who know I’d never encourage violence.

    And if your site is really about morals and ethics, you’d change the headline back to what it originally said.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “I was attempting to illustrate there aren’t many options between ignoring them and all out war.”

      This sounds a lot like all-or-nothing thinking. There are billions and billions of options available as long as one doesn’t limit oneself to strict party line scripts. Free people will, of their own devices, find solutions that are of the greatest benefit to the greatest number. It’s automatic. It’s the “Invisible Hand.”

      Government coercion is the problem here. There’s way too much of it and it needs to be rolled back to zero if we want the Republic to last past the next election or so.

    2. avatar Rob Crawford says:

      You write for “crooks and liars”. That’s a site that routinely calls for violence against anyone who disagrees with its lunatic editorial line.

      You’re known by the company you keep.

      (The illustration accompanying your original screed looks like a Ted Rall scribble. Look up Rall’s history of calling for violence, as well. Birds of a feather.)

  87. avatar Andrea says:

    Are you actually insane? You are actually talking about shooting someone. A human being who could be your neighbor, friend, or even family member who just doesn’t tell you they have a gun. Do you honestly think that every person who owns a gun is a crackpot? How about the wife/girlfriend who has been beaten so badly she almost died, and is terrified that the next time might be her death? How about people unfortunate enough, who do not make enough to live in better neighborhoods, and have a genuine concern for their lives when they walk to a store or home? How about your average gun owner who likes to go down to a gun range and shoot at “PAPER” targets? Most people have guns at home to protect their family, not go around in the streets popping people off like you may see in video games. So, are you? Insane that is. I never see any gun owner talk about shooting the anti-gunners – ever. Why is it that the anti-gunners talk so violently about normal people who own guns? You are the ones who come off as sick and crackpots. If you really want to do something, put your efforts into getting help for the mentally ill – because they are the ones who snap and go out and do the mass shootings. Lone, mentally ill shootists. How dare you talk about shooting someone – you need help.

  88. avatar rt66paul says:

    You just might be surprised at the number of left leaning people in this country that do not agree with the gun grabbers. Many do not stand with the Wall Street barons and the bankers that caused the crash in 2007. There was a lot of money to be made and then it was the middle class that truely sufferred.
    Many voted for Bernie against Hillary and then voted Libertarian. Most were glad that Hillary did not win, because they were smart enough to know what that win could have done to the country that they love.
    Single issue voters have always been the 15 or 20% of the vote that truely turns the tide. They can be made to vote with the right reasons, but otherwise do not vote. Thankfully, many of those that would vote Democrat with the right indignation, did not feel it this time, so the pro 2nd supporters voted for Trump.
    A true freedom loving president would start by getting rid of the patriot act and all the federal agencies that are working towards the domination of the people.

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