NJ Mom Calls for Civilian Disarmament

-11699e0c4559bd7c

“Whenever tragedies occur like the one that engulfed Jeanine LePage and her family in Tabernacle, we ask ourselves how this could have been prevented.” So says Carole Stiller, President of the NJ Million Mom March, at the dailyrecord.com. “While there are many unanswered questions about what led to this tragedy, we cannot forget this simple truth: Too many shootings occur because proper weight has not been given to the risks that come with gun ownership.” In other words . . .

People are too stupid to remove guns from their homes when their homes are inhabited by the mentally ill. Which could very well be them! So  society should step-up and remove firearms from these troubled souls. For their own good. Better yet, society should prevent them, the troubled souls, from acquiring guns in the first place.

Only Ms. Stiller doesn’t have the cojones to make that argument. Instead she dances around disarmament, hiding her true intentions behind emotionally-laden generalizations.

A gun in the home increases the risk of an unintentional shooting, suicide and homicide to the women and children who live with guns. A gun in the home can turn a stressful situation, whether it’s around money or relationships, deadly. But we can prevent many of these tragedies by helping families understand these risks so they make better choices around gun ownership and use.

A young child can find a gun and accidentally shoot a friend or himself. Or a depressed teen could decide to easily end it all. And once a gun is no longer required by the original owner (due to death, other means of protection, etc.), the weapon should be removed from the home.

Who, exactly, is going to “help” families to understand the risks of gun ownership? Somehow I don’t think the NRA’s on Ms. Stiller’s imaginary list of firearms counsellors. By the same token, who exactly should identify at-risk gun owners and/or their families and disarm them?

We as a community also share a responsibility to recognize when people are in crisis and ensure they do not have access to a gun.

And there you have it; the kindler, gentler face of civilian disarmament. Is anyone fooled by this firearms folderol? Unfortunately, yes. How sad, make that dangerous is that?

comments

  1. avatar ray says:

    uh……NO!

  2. avatar scott thompson says:

    as fake as hair bands

  3. avatar Sammy says:

    The Wonder Woman pose says it all.

    1. avatar Timmer says:

      I was thinking that she really needs a cape in that picture.

    2. avatar Jay-El says:

      Maybe she’s wondering when the other 999,999 moms are going to show up?

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        My guess is literally never. Well, unless they’re paid that is. That’s the only way under the Sun that they even get anybody to show up at any of their rallies. The exactly same thing could be said of any other gun control advocacy group.

        Nobody shows up unless their bills are paid in advance.

        NOT so for us.

    3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      I know, right? I was thinking Superman, but basically the same thing. What exactly are this lady’s abilities and causes, anyway? I think I know……

      Faster than the (un)SAFE Act was passed! More powerful than an ulterior motive! Able to leap to faulty conclusions in a single bound! Yada yada yada………she fights a never-ending battle for untruth, injustice, and what I’ll charitably describe as the post-Weimar way.

      Good grief, grandmom. Get over yourself.

      1. avatar Bob101 says:

        “post-Weimar way”

        I must use that quote. Shame that most people don’t have a clue what.that is, but perhaps they will spend time looking it up.

    4. avatar Gene says:

      As soon as I saw that picture, I was reminded of the Robin Williams photo bit from Robots.

      It’s really a very stiff, contrived, and cliche’d pose.

    5. avatar Don says:

      Judging by the photo, it’s a virtual million mom march, or Army of one.

  4. avatar ADC USN/Ret says:

    How do the anti-gun crowd live with themselves?

    Voting for and enacting the laws that prevent good people from having the guns to protect themselves and even the victims.

    The anti-gunners are responsible for all these criminals running around and attacking people. Low life MF’s!

    Then they have the nuts to blame everyone but themselves. They are the culprits that need to be identified as the cause of the problem.

    1. avatar dh34 says:

      First Chief, thanks for your service. Were you a ground pounder mech or a FE?

      In Navy terms, they live with themselves the same way that “policy makers” in OPNAV do when they sign off on the new feel good policy of the month…regardless of the impact it has on the fleet and the COs, CMCs, DIVOs and LCPOs that have to implement them. They know what is better for the fleet than those in it…it’s the same mindset.

      1. avatar Jay-El says:

        …it’s the same mindset.

        Excerpt that these people are self-appointed and have no actual authority.

        Still, good point

      2. avatar ADC USN/Ret says:

        C-130 FE. amongst many other things in my 20.

        What were you?

        1. avatar dh34 says:

          Sorry Chief…I was out communing with nature with high powered rifle.

          I was a stick monkey, P-3s mostly.

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      How do the anti-gun crowd live with themselves? They get paid by Bloomberg for this gig. Seriously!

      1. avatar ADC USN/Ret says:

        These folks have tons of power! So maybe a combination of power and money.

        The truth is that they are the MURDERERS by proxy. They vote in the pols, and laws and just sit back and watch the victims get slaughtered! Those victims die are robbed and/or raped by the anti-gun crowd.

        We are no longer a nation of laws, when the POTUS can and does ignore them at his own discretion. The CT and NY people who ignore the new laws are just following his example.

  5. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

    I have to agree in one respect that not nearly enough is being done to prevent people like the Adam Lanzas and such from obtaining firearms. THAT is what I would call common sense.
    I really could get behind legislation that is some way addressed the easy access of firearms among those KNOWN by family and friends to suffer from obvious emotional difficulties.
    Face it, crazy is crazy. Mental illness is rampant and problematic in our society. Eventually, appropriate measures will have to be taken to insure nut jobs don’t have easy access to firearms.

    No, it doesn’t mean they can’t go buy a can of gas and burn something or run people down in a car, but then the antis are not trying to take cars or ban gas. As a sane person with guns, I support some sort of method of keeping guns from he insane. Lock them up, get them away….do whatever has to be done, but keep the nuts from the guns. Is that easy? No, but I support that as opposed to attempting weapon and magazine bans, which is easy, simplistic and doesn’t work.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “Eventually, appropriate measures will have to be taken to insure nut jobs don’t have easy access to firearms. “

      So, do tell: what exactly is the track record, yours or in general, with predicting human behavior…who will “snap” and who won’t?

      And, I don’t mean offer vague generalizations that start with “we all know” and “it only makes sense.” I mean specifics. Where’s the data showing that this can be predicted BEFORE hand?

      20/20 hindsight, like a lot of other talk, is cheap.

      1. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

        Like I said, “Is that easy? No” Yes I said that. OBVIOUSLY Adam Lanza was a nut case. Everyone knew it. There is plenty of information to show that failures in dealing with him were every place along the line up to his horrific act. Failure after failure, and yet, his nitwit mom had guns that were accessible to him.

        I said it wouldn’t be easy and I’m not getting paid to put together a plan. However, what I don’t agree with is banning specific firearms and accessories because some idiots used them in some unspeakable crime. Do I need to dissect that also to please you or can you relate with that without giving you specifics?

        So tell you what, let’s just go ahead and ban AR15s and magazines, because when it comes down to it, 20/20 hindsight, like a lot of other talk, is cheap and we can’t come up with a plan so we’ll just ban guns.

        Brilliant! Go hide your head in the sand. You’re not part a solution, you’re part of the problem. Go away.

        1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          Would it have been a wise choice for Mrs. Lanza to remove the guns from the house until her son recieved help? Absolutely, but it would have been unwise to force her to through legislation. Legislating that certain circumstances trigger the forcible confiscation of certain items causes many people to hide those circumstances instead of avoiding them.

          It is a problem that cannot be solved by legislation that focuses on the gun. Think it through. With both a legislative and personal solution to such a situation, one has to recognize the potential and take action. Lanza’s mom would have had to involve legal authorities in such a way to have them remove her firearms, or she would have had to remove her guns and have them stored by a family friend or someone else on her own. Either solution requires initiative on the part of an individual who knows the unstable person. If Mrs. Lanza were unwilling to take her guns to storage outside of her home, she would likely be equally reluctant to invoke the authority of law enforcement.

          If, however, you propose a solution that would have the guns confiscated after contact by a social worker or mental health professional who has contact with the unstable person, then deprives the normal residents of that home of a legitimate tool of protection, should it be needed, while leaving a still dangerously unstable person in the home with them. There is nothing at this point preventing the unstable one from murdering the family in their sleep with kitchen knives, or a gas leak, or carbon monixide poisoning, or arson, or any number of other things. In the specific case of Lanza, you would most likely have prevented the 26 deaths at the school, but that would have only lessened the tragedy, not avoided it.

          The danger itself stems from the unstable individual, and there is no way to avoid that fact. The danger does not stem from the gun itself, guns can only modify the danger represented by a person, that’s why we have them, to bring the danger we represent up to or above the level of danger an attacker represents. Any solution revolving around confiscating the guns at any level still leaves the source of the danger at large in society, around people you have just disarmed.

          If we recognize that a situation where an unstable person is in a home with a gun warrants the forceful transfer of custody by law enforcement, then lets transfer the custody of the PERSON who is creating that danger. If a person is unstable enough to warrant forcibly removing someone else’s guns from that home, then the better solution is to forcibly remove the dangerously unstable person.

          Our society recognizes another somewhat similar situation. Perhaps on of our resident LEO’s can correct me if i’m wrong here. If a convicted felon who is paroled wants to move in with his daughter and son in law, and the son in law owns a gun, it is not the gun that is prohibited from being in that household, it is the parolee father. We agree that it is the PERSON who represents the danger when mixed with the gun, and not the gun itself.

          It is national suicide to modify society so that dangerously unstable people can remain in it instead of removing dangerously unstable people and giving them the help that they need.

        2. Realistically in a free society, except for the most extreme cases, our best chance to keep the mentally ill from getting in trouble with guns is to do a better job of delivering health care. The ACA may not be the answer but neither was the old system. Accessibility of healthcare is the only way to address the problem otherwise the mentally ill will continue to provide the clueless with excuses to inconvenience gun owners.

        3. avatar ADC USN/Ret says:

          Another fine example of the murderous left!

        4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “So tell you what, let’s just go ahead and ban AR15s and magazines, “

          Nice false dichotomy there. Your knee-jerking is stuck on “High.” You might want to have that checked.

          The problem with your “solution” is that it WILL NOT WORK. You cannot predict human behavior. No matter what fantasy, Minority-Report-esque dream world you choose to live in…

          The only reason you are talking about Lanza now as your great example is because he actually DID something. You know…hindsight.

          Keep feeding the Progressive Utopian fuel that humans are to be “Controlled,” though. Control the mentally ill, control felons, control everyone but the chosen elite. The only difference is YOU want to be the one choosing who gets controlled.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          ” If a person is unstable enough to warrant forcibly removing someone else’s guns from that home, then the better solution is to forcibly remove the dangerously unstable person.”

          Absolutely, 100% correct. And I would bet you that the authorities would have gotten no argument from Lanza’s Mom, I’d bet she tried to get him removed and told it was her problem. But it would cost money instead of providing the cops with more toys to play with.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Ever occur to you that providing easy means to the government to lock up anyone whom they deem mentally defective and a grave risk of danger should they possess guns, would itself tend to suppress firearms ownership in a way similar to or even superior to an actual ban?

      After all, who would want to draw the ire of a lawless government and risk losing every semblance of their former life, simply by owning guns and being outspoken? The safer, simpler route would be to forfeit your own right to keep and bear arms, rather than endure its loss and so much more. It would be an effect similar to the self-censorship imposed through threat of politically correctness retaliation.

      After all, who wants to be called racist, homophobic and a wager of war on women, when it’s just easier to keep your mouth shut? Indeed, it’s easier for the oppressors to, as the alternative would be a difficult and costly to achieve outright ban on free speech.

      And so we have a puny and shriveled marketplace of ideas in this country today, all because people are afraid to exercise their first amendment rights. Likewise, the mental health focus and expansion of government power to dispossess the “unfit” of their firearms, could well bring about a submissive and disarmed populace tomorrow, all because people are afraid to exercise their second amendment rights.

      Be very careful what you wish for, my friend, because you just might get it, and with feeling.

    3. avatar LongPurple says:

      ” Lock them up, get them away….do whatever has to be done, but keep the nuts from the guns.”

      Agreed.
      That was the way things used to be handled. The “nuts” were kept from the guns (and knives, and cars, and matches, etc.) by being put in an asylum, a strictly controlled environment where they could be kept from harming themselves or others, while they were treated for their mental problems.
      Then, we were told this was too costly and ineffective. It was put over that it would be better to “mainstream” the mentally ill, and give them medications to supposedly control aberrant behavior while keeping them in a “normal society”.
      The result has been a growing tendency to consider all of civil society as an asylum, with all the restrictions and regulations required to monitor and control those psychiatric patients now imposed on the general population.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Not quite. I lived in a town with one of those facilities in the ’60s, and would add that the doors were locked, and working there was not real safe. But it was a SCOTUS ruling that emptied the asylums, since many “patients” were essentially locked up for life, without a trial, in conditions worse than any prison. The costs were being handled with little complaint, that was not the reason.

    4. avatar Xanthro says:

      I have to agree in one respect that not nearly enough is being done to prevent people like the Adam Lanzas and such from obtaining firearms. THAT is what I would call common sense.
      ———————–
      So, let’s pass a law making it illegal to kill your mother and steal her firearms
      ….. oh wait
      Where did that common sense fly to?

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Didn’t the Boston Marathon bombers kill a cop to get his gun, too? Let’s add killing a cop to get his guns to the things-that-should-a-crime list, too. That will reduce the easy access these people have to guns.

    5. avatar Paul G. says:

      And after the legislation exists, they can tweak it a little every year so that 10 years down the road, anyone who thinks that “non-LEO/military should be able to own a gun” is too mentally ill themself to own one. But of course! When you give government power to keep you “safe”, they take it seriously….:LOL.

    6. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Mark Lloyd, Adam Lanza was forced to murder his mother in her sleep and break into her gun safe in order to obtain his guns, how exactly do you think we should make it tougher? Yet you claim she was an idiot who made guns available to him? Not until she was dead! What a dumb comment.

  6. avatar Glenn says:

    Once again the face of friendly fascism shows itself.

    1. avatar Desert Ranger says:

      Their ALWAYS friendly until you tell them no…

  7. avatar Taylor TX says:

    Shills gonna shill. I wonder if she read the MDA turkey talking points.

    Assuming you use a safe if you have children in the house, wtf is she even talking about other than just removing ALL guns from the home? Man I HATE this public health issue nonsense.

  8. avatar neiowa says:

    Madam, Learn to knit then stick to your own damn….

  9. avatar dh34 says:

    Ms. LePage…every day, I see adults that have no business behind the wheel of a car. Their emotional immaturity leads them to use their car as a toy or a weapon, and play games at 50-75 mph with other drivers that have “offended” them in some way, with a complete disregard for the safety of the other drivers around them. Everyday, I have an exponentially higher chance of being in a fatal or crippling auto accident as a result of aggressive driving, not to mention texting/distracted driving, than I do as the victim of a accidental or intentional firearms use…redirect your efforts darling.

    1. avatar J Star says:

      Yes, thank you!

  10. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    Does this women realize that the second amendment and millions of gun owners will not allow her insanity to come true?

  11. avatar Calvin says:

    Molon labe, grandma! I’d like to see her try. Oh, what? She’s going to have someone with a gun do it for her? Figures …

  12. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

    I seem to remember how we were told, nay….warned, that if elected, republicans would be snooping into what people did in their bedrooms. Does anybody actually still believe that preposterous piece of political slander? How can we possibly reconcile with people who believe we’re too stupid to look after ourselves without the help of the Nanny state?

  13. avatar CarlosT says:

    And once a gun is no longer required by the original owner (due to death, other means of protection, etc.), the weapon should be removed from the home.

    First of all, no passing on your own property to your heirs for you, you vile gun owners. Second, we’ll let you know what’s acceptable means of self-defense or not. Cast aside any silly notions of self-determination, freedom, or autonomy. There’s a crisis, a CRISIS I SAY, and you’re either a part of the problem or a part of the solution. So, what’s it going to be? You don’t want to be a problem, do you? Because we have solutions to problems…

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      We could skip to the chase, and just confiscate the home itself, to be certain no hidden guns find their way through. Let’s start with hers, in fact…

  14. avatar JDS says:

    If she wants to help the truly insane then let’s have a discussion about locking them up in a facility for treatment so they have no opportunity to get to a weapon of any kind. Leave my guns out of the discussion.
    Start with her and her 999,999 invisible friends she believes are marching behind her.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      I just wonder if she is one of the mentally ill who should not have access to firearms, let alone a car.

  15. avatar Noishkel says:

    Mom’s like this absolutely DISGUST me. They’ll go on and on for hours and cry to the heavens that we must THINK OF THE CHILDREN every time a incident happens. I just want to grab them by the FACE and ask them when are THEY going to start thinking of the children instead of parroting some tag line they read from a news letter.

    Where’s was a mother when the gang banger shoots someone in the face as part of an initiation? Where was a mother when their sick child picked up a gun to go shoot up their class mates? Where was the mother when her boyfriend of the week stashed a hot stolen 9 in their kids toys? Where was the mother when she was supposed to BEING A MOTHER instead of harping on how AWFUL it is that we have liberty?

    The longer I live here the more I’m thinking that it’s time to take the fight to the enemy. Playing nice isn’t working anymore now that they’re getting more and more funding. I say it’s time to treating these people like the scum bags they are. We need to start showing up and their events and calling them out on the BS. Start treating these people like the friggen KKK every time the show up to start some crap and run them out of town.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Where’s was a mother when the gang banger shoots someone in the face as part of an initiation? Where was a mother when their sick child picked up a gun to go shoot up their class mates? Where was the mother when her boyfriend of the week stashed a hot stolen 9 in their kids toys? Where was the mother when she was supposed to BEING A MOTHER instead of harping on how AWFUL it is that we have liberty?
      Simple. She was collecting a paycheck from Bloomberg and going shopping at the mall.

      1. avatar Noishkel says:

        Possibly.

        I’ve got an urge to create a meme image for. A knock of the ‘Ancient Aliens’ meme save having Micheal Bloomburg saying ‘I’m not saying gun deaths are difertly the NRA’s fault. But all gun deaths are directly the NRA’s fault.’

  16. avatar Jay-El says:

    And by the way, ma’am, get the fock out of the middle of the street — and take your imaginary friends with you.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Michael Brown is her role model.

  17. avatar v v ind says:

    He guys my wife and I are going to shoot a few rounds off tomorrow. I’m calling the event “100 billion citizens shooting” if anyone wants they can take my pic, I’ll eve superman pose

  18. avatar Javier says:

    Lamp cords, razor blades, rope, sleeping pills, pain killers, poisonous chemicals, exhaust pipes, knives, …..∞ When will people like this stop blaming the tool used to bring about death and hold the user accountable for the misuse of the tool? The loss is great and painful but it was committed by an INDIVIDUAL who had mental issues not by the rest of humanity!

  19. avatar Accur81 says:

    Hmmm, the weight of gun ownership. Let’s see. A box of 525 rounds of .22 LR or 50 rounds of .40 Smith are a both a bit over 5 pounds. A loaded AR with a sling runs around 9 pounds. The .338 is about 18 pounds with optics. And an assortment of roughly 8,000 rounds in various calibers is heavy enough to bend a heavy duty steel shelf.

    Gun ownership is a indeed a heavy burden. I recommend lots of protein. Remember to lift with your legs and not your back.

  20. avatar MrVigs says:

    That super mom image is gonna look nice on paper form thru my reticle @ 200 yds. A little windage forgiveness too I see 😉

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      You’re not helping.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        No, but it was funny!

  21. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    Anyone else getting tired of the antis assuming that the risk for accidental death, suicide, or homicide is purely statistical? Like the god of bad ideas is rolling dice for each and every gun owner every day to see if we’re unlucky that day.

  22. avatar Justsomeguy says:

    “We as a community also share a responsibility to recognize when people are in crisis and ensure they do not have access to a gun.”

    Let’s see; you want to ensure that a person doesn’t have a gun when they are in “crises”, which you are apparently qualified to determine, but society has no responsibility to determine when an individual is in danger nor to protect them accordingly.

    I’ll shine a bit different light on it. Recognizing someone in crises is difficult to impossible to do, so you will be certain to err on the side of caution and disarm as many people as possible. When someone is found in their own apartment beaten to death you will probably say oh what a shame.

    1. avatar Paul G. says:

      “we as a community”…an exercise in democracy, majority rule!!
      Or is that socialism? Ask WW Wilson…”The difference between democracy and socialism is not an essential difference, but only a practical difference—is a difference of organization and policy, not a difference of primary motive.”
      Such was the reasoning for avoiding the creation of a democracy, and forging a republic instead, hell bent on the importance of individual rights. My how things have changed.

    2. avatar DickDanger says:

      “When someone is found in their own apartment beaten to death you will probably say oh what a shame.”
      Then when you bring this to the attention of a Million-mom-marcher, they’d probably reply, “Well, that person wasn’t shot, and that’s what’s important.”

  23. avatar Amok! says:

    Amen to lifting with your legs!

  24. avatar Amok! says:

    Anti always (big word) have in common the total inability to articulate their state’s use of force/lethal/deadly force laws for self defense.

    They make very obedient victims for criminals.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      You mean criminals like the government? The MDA and others are simply useful idiots.

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      SSDD. Another paid useful idiotic state sponsored Big Sister from the Ministry of Love shill being amplified by the useful idiotic state sponsored Ministry of Truth media machine.

  25. avatar DickDanger says:

    I would be more worried if she didn’t look like she’s about a week away from kicking the bucket.

  26. avatar Gwendolyn says:

    Oh my..this poor deluded lady…when she mentioned that it is unsafe for home owner to have a gun in the house she was referring to Dr Kellerman’s fraudulent study which was found,eventually, to be a complete lie. Google for the story.

  27. avatar Nv says:

    I had to ‘voluntarily’ surrender my guns when I was falsely accussed of shooting up my workplace…a police station. Because I owned guns and was upset about being sexually harassed, in the minds if some women who wanted way too much TV after the Sabd Hook thing, I was allegedly a threat. Nevermind actions or words; guns + unhappy over something = crazy. I could have said no, but instead of getting transferred, I would have been fired and put on a mental health hold. This was started by women, moms. The men saw right through the BS and actually helped me keep my job (I quit when I found a new line of work). So no Mom’s, you know jack, are reactionary, and are just depriving people if your rights. Your words and deeds are as offensive to me as telling you to get back in the kitchen and shut up is to you.

    1. avatar Fug says:

      I feel for you man, I had a contracting job at the Delaware DOL and was terminated the day after a female co-worker found out I owned a firearm. I was processing tax credit applications from businesses and one of them was from the shop where I bought my gun. I happened to mention it to her, because their form was outdated by several years.

      She looked at me like I had six heads and they called me the next morning right when I was getting ready to head out and essentially said “don’t bother.” Their official reason was that I had been late one to many times… which is funny because I’m paraplegic and all my work was done ahead of schedule and I was very rarely late.

      An older woman had warned me on my first day there “You know they’re all Democrats, right?” Somehow she could tell I wasn’t like them. She had been harassed in the office for being openly conservative before I got there. My leftist, vegan, Xanax abusing co-workers openly mocked this woman whenever she wasn’t around. It was disgusting and I wish I was making it up.

      To my fellow gun owners: prepare to be discriminated against.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Or move to a free state and leave them to stew.

  28. avatar Custodian says:

    I can’t take anyone from New Jersey seriously. I mean you can’t even pump your own gas, for crying out loud, without breaking the so called law there.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yeah, I love that. The citizenry is too stupid to pump their own gas without, for example, using their cell phone, and we all know how many gas stations have been blown all to Hell by cell phone caused explosions. Essentially everywhere, it is illegal to pump your own gas without first turning off your cell phone. Absolutely nobody actually does it, the law is broken like 20-30 million times a day, with absolutely zero mishaps, yet the law is still there. Amazing. Can we spell “nanny state”?

  29. avatar IdahoPete says:

    “We as a community also share a responsibility to recognize when people are in crisis and ensure they do not have access to a gun.”

    That is the exact argument that the leftist gun-banners used in California to pass their law that allows the state to take your guns without a hearing, based on a “credible report” from your neighbors or your ex-.

    Welcome to the Orwellian state of mind control, comrades!

  30. avatar Ralph says:

    Here’s some advice to gun owners who are living with an unstable or insane relative: Keep the guns in the house and remove your nutbag relative to a proper facility. Problem solved.

  31. avatar Max says:

    I sat next to this woman at a couple hearings at the NJ statehouse. She smells like crap.

  32. avatar Jus Bill says:

    She needs to move to Missouri. Ferguson, Missouri. Now.

  33. avatar James says:

    Its sad that people like Ms. Stiller have no use for the facts. The facts are simple. Homicide by Firearm was down again, continuing a trend that has lasted for over a decade. Homicides are down (FBI Expanded Homicide Table 8) and legal gun ownership continues to expand (CNN – Black Friday Gun Sales). Is Ms. Stiller ignoring the truth or just willfully ignorant?

  34. avatar J- says:

    I wonder if Andrea Yates and Susan Smith support her cause?

  35. avatar GS650G says:

    Sorry, I’m too old for grandmother types to tell me what to do.

  36. avatar Mark Lee says:

    Police officers are civilians. Let;s see how that works out.

    1. avatar Paul G says:

      Shhhh, she’s on a roll.

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