(courtesy wallsofthecity.net)

Over at wallsofthecity.net, veteran gun blogger Linoge unearthed a gun control advocate who makes no bones about his desire to see gun owners wiped from the face of the earth. “Can someone explain why ‘Molon Labe’ isn’t considered a statement of terrorism and all who exclaim it to be jailed for inciting violence and treason?” Adam Mermer asks on his Facebook page. “It’s stating that they will murder police and soldiers. If that doesn’t deserve placement in front of a firing squad or a seat in an electric chair, nothing does.” Anti-gun extremism or the logical extension of the anti-gun ethos? In other words, do the people promoting civilian disarmament want gun owners to surrender their guns . . . or else?

146 Responses to Question of the Day: Do Anti-Gunners Want You Dead?

    • I imagine it is. Look at that short bus rider in the picture. When do you think the last time a female other than his mother touched him?

    • I’m not quite sure it’s stupidity. To me, as RF points out, it’s simply the logical extension of statism.

      It’s like wrapping a piece of shit in bacon. The only difference here is that this gentleman is trying to serve it to us without the bacon. Statists always cloak their causes in feel-good justifications: Do it for the children. Do it for the poor. Do it for the weak. Do it for the hungry. Do it for moms. Do it for the sick. Do it for abused women. Do it for oppressed minorities. Sounds great, right?

      However, the statist flow chart/process map always leads to the use of force. Always. That’s the rub: It has to by definition. Hasty thought experiment:

      1) An increase in civil liberty results in fewer criminal codes to be violated. This means that there are fewer requirements for the state to enforce. This will refocus police efforts on malum in se crimes (where they ought to be focused to begin with). This simultaneously results in fewer interactions with malum prohibitum offenders, because their behavior has been decriminalized and they are no longer violating the law. This necessarily leads to fewer instances where malum prohibitum offenders resist law enforcement’s efforts to curtail their behavior. This results in fewer uses of force by police and a reduction of police power.

      2) A decrease in civil liberty results in more criminal codes to be violated. This means that there are more requirements for the state to enforce. This takes the focus of police efforts off of malum in se crimes and redirects them towards newly minted malum prohibitum offenders. This increases interactions between police and malum prohibitum offenders. This results in resentment towards law enforcement because once legal behavior has now been criminalized. This leads to increased resistance towards law enforcement’s efforts to curtail their behavior. This results in more instances of police use of force and ultimately more police power.

      Statists understand this as well as anyone. So you can either eat a piece of shit wrapped in bacon, or you can eat it plain. As far as the statist is concerned, either way you’re going to eat that piece of shit. The statist’s single-minded devotion to the state DEMANDS it. The statist’s world view centers on the belief that the government is the solution to all problems faced by a society. If you successfully resist the state, that world view falls apart. Remember those folks who lost their collective shit over the successful outcome of the bundy ranch standoff? I seem to recall more than a few statists who called for blood. They may claim to prefer a non-violent resolution but if you resist the will of the state they’re perfectly content to have you die for your beliefs.

      In this way, Mr. Mermer is simply being honest. All the more reason to resist the implemention of gun control in all forms. Mr. Mermer’s beliefs are the true face hidden beneath the mask. We must redouble our efforts. No step backwards, no compromise and no rest until the RKBA has been cleansed of all infringement. Vote wisely.

      • @Texsylvanian;
        “In this way, Mr. Mermer is simply being honest.”

        Yeah, I can see your point. And I agree with your analysis on the effect of malum in se vs. prohibitum laws.

        A natural consequence of the state being unable to stop malum in se offenses through Johnny on the spot enforcement of its penal code is the creation of malum prohibitum statutes in an attempt to outlaw behavior that *might* be associated with malum in se crimes. Consequently this often labels many innocent people offenders when they have no evil intent. And law enforcement is then focused on the easier to enforce (at their whim) prohibitum laws seeing them as an effective crime *prevention* tool since cops are so limited in their ability to actually be at a crime scene in time to intercede during a malum in se crime.

        Unfortunately, this ‘person’ you mischaracterize as a “gentleman” would have the state create draconian anti-gun restrictions and advocate that anyone who violates such unconstitutional malum prohibitum laws be eliminated if he happens to be a gun owner.

      • “It’s like wrapping a piece of shit in bacon. The only difference here is that this gentleman is trying to serve it to us without the bacon.”

        You are freaking KILLING me, here. I spewed in multiple directions. And that “gentleman” part just destroyed me.

    • It really is stupid. Step 1) determine that gun owners should be executed. Step 2) become gun owner to facilitate… uh oh.

      I guess the First Amendment doesn’t apply to folks who exercise the Second. Apparently saying “Molon Labe” is deserving of execution (by firing squad, no less). I wonder if he also thinks every rapper and other person who has spoken of killing cops or military deserves to be put to death for their speech. I wonder how he equates “come and take them” with a statement of terrorist intent and the intent or desire to kill people. Sounds to me like a person wanting to be left alone who won’t bother anyone else unless they’re defending their own property on their own property from those who would try to take it forcibly.

      • It really is stupid. Step 1) determine that gun owners should be executed. Step 2) become gun owner to facilitate… uh oh
        Yeah, we need to kill all gun owners so we need to run down to the gun shop and well…er….become a gun owner! Priceless!

        • They’re even worse than we are in the manner of “keyboard commandos”, they plan on having “someone else” actually come to our homes and teach us a damn LESSON, don’cha see. While they direct the action from safety. If they understood the risks they are imposing upon themselves, they would quickly STFU or find another topic to be stupid about.

      • He proves the necessity of the 2nd Amendment with his insane rantings. These people are out there, inciting violence and influencing politicians. I will not surrender my natural rights to tyrannical psychos threatening me with violence.

    • I chat with Linoge from time to time on twitter.
      The amount of vitriol I see from the antis pretty much sums up the fact that if they could repeal the 2nd amendment and kill all gun owners I am sure they would.

    • Yep, this. Gun grabbers are like the person who goes out of their way to find a bear minding its own business in the woods, goads the bear until it responds, then gleefully shouts “See! See! I told you it was dangerous!”

      • Bear safety is easy though. Hikers should wear little bells on their clothes so they make noise when hiking. The bell noise allows bears to hear them coming from a distance and not be startled by a hiker accidentally sneaking up on them. This might cause a bear to charge.
        Hikers should also carry a pepper spray can just in case a bear is encountered. Spraying the pepper into the air will irritate the bear’s sensitive nose and it will run away.
        It is also a good idea to keep an eye out for fresh bear scat so you have an idea if bears are in the area. People should be able to recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear scat.
        Black bear droppings are smaller and often contain berries, leaves, and possibly bits of fur. Grizzly bear droppings tend to contain small bells and smell of pepper.

        • So, if we make gun-hating loudmouths wear little bells, we too can hear them coming and avoid their stupidity?

          The only problem I can see is the amount of gun-owners with-hearing loss – purely because the government makes safety devices (AKA: suppressors) as difficult to own as possible.

  1. Who is going to do all this executing, pray tell…

    Think he is down enough for the cause to step up to the plate? Or do you think he wants others to do his bidding for him?

    • I’m thinking guns would be the best tools for enacting said executions. Is that irony, or coincidence? I’m foggy on the distinction between the two…

  2. These are the sorts of people who join up with groups like ISIS or bomb OBGYN offices in the name of Jesus.

    They don’t really believe in the cause, any cause. They’re just floating full of aimless angst looking for a cause/group/niche that fits with that aimless angst.

    Like a free radical. The cause or movement if it registers at all is secondary to the main point of finding a focus for the angst.

  3. Anti-gunners are some of the most hateful, violent people out there. Is this any surprise? They justify their opposition to our right to keep and bear arms by projecting their own violent tendencies and lack of self-control onto the rest of us.

    • It’s all projection. Most of them are spiteful, angry, and disillusioned. Now, none of us are perfect either, but pro-2A people are usually the calmest people I know, unless there’s a classic gun debate (AR vs AK or whatever) going down, ha ha.

    • Even worse. “If you don’t do as I say…”

      It’s not about believing in any one particular thing over another. It’s about being subservient, kneel before us, or die.

      People like this don’t care if you believe, as long as you do as you’re told.

      • It’s not about believing in any one particular thing over another. It’s about being subservient, kneel before us, or die.

        Sadly, that’s been the US foreign policy since WWII.

        • It was that way before WW2, just ask Teddy Roosevelt…

          And America wasn’t/isn’t the only country that has ever been that way.

          But, it is almost always less about “kneel before us…” and more about “give us your resources…”

        • Its nuts, its like our government is run by a bunch of Cersei Lannister’s. Fire anyone competent to ensure you are the smartest one in the room, topple an at worst neutral country to place a weak puppet regime that will be overthrown. Its like Obama (and nearly all preceding him) took all the wrong lessons from Game of Thrones. You are supposed to walk THEM through the betrayal garden!

      • Yes, the nerve of some demanding that the rest kneel before them…

        Ahem.

        Interesting, though, that his solution to murders committed by criminals with (usually stolen) firearms is to murder law-abiding citizens who do not share his beliefs. Yeah, that’ll show the criminals…

        I wonder what his solution to knife murders is? And will he exempt himself from it?

  4. “In other words, do the people promoting civilian disarmament want gun owners to surrender their guns . . . or else?”

    Yes, next question.

    The funniest thing for me is those who claim to abhor violence are the ones who seem to wish it perpetrated on others.

  5. Considering most anti-gunners have little to no emotional control, this is their true feelings. This is how their emotions drive them, ie if they don’t like it, you shouldn’t either and if you disagree, off with your head. We are headed to an era of civil war because there is little chance the antis keep their hatred and rage contained to just words. They’ll act out eventually.

    • “We are headed to an era of civil war…”

      I fear you are right. If history repeats itself, the chess pieces are certainly moving into position for a revolution or civil war. I pray We The People can turn it around before it becomes necessary.

    • “We are headed to an era of civil war because there is little chance the antis keep their hatred and rage contained to just words. They’ll act out eventually.”

      And this is exactly why I have firearms … in case I have to defend myself and my family and possibly even my community from those who would consume us for daring to live as good, free people.

      If gun grabbers start the war, however, they will be doomed to failure since most of them are unarmed.

  6. Such people are a non-trivial contribution to the reasons in favor of armed self-defense by law-abiding Americans. As a reminder: have a look at the comments posted on the CSGV Facebook page for more of the same rhetoric.

    As for the content of the tweet: as discussed over the past couple days, non-LEO who legally carry firearms are documented to be less of a threat to public safety than their badge-wearing brethren. They commit 1/3 the rate of non-justifiable homicide, and 1/10 the rate of overall crime.

    To be fair, there are crazies on both ends of the ideological spectrum. But if someone on the fringe/extreme right goes crazy, he’s most likely to declare himself a Sovereign Citizen, take himself off the grid, and live in solitude. On the other hand, if someone on the fringe/extreme left goes crazy, he’s more likely to decide to kill one or more people, and/or commit suicide-by-cop.

    I should also point out the great irony/hypocrisy of the position of someone as-linked in the OP: he is so opposed to civilian gun ownership that he is willing to let the government use guns not just to disarm them, but to execute them. And this nutcase goes even further: he wants execution of gun owners to be legal – meaning that he is in favor of crazies like him legally being able to use guns to execute law-abiding gun owners.

  7. Well; when a certain group of people can dehumanize and accept the mass murder of the most helpless among us and call it a “right” ie abortion; It would be simple exercise to accept the mass murder of a bunch of “ignorant, racist, wife beating, bible beating, wanna be mass murdering gun owners”. Those gun owners aren’t really human after all.

  8. Molon Labe is a statement of peace.

    Come and take it, really is affirming the right to live in peace as a free man. It implies a defensive stance, not one of aggression.

    So the writer should consider who really is making the threats of violence, imprisonment and terror.

    • Unless my historical context is wrong, the Greeks were not invading Persia trying to disarmed the Persians while saying,”Come and take it.”

      • Absofrigginglutely spot on.

        The broader story is that the Persian empire had conquered the Ionian Greek states–these are on what is now the Turkish mainland, but that was most assuredly Greek territory back then. Many of the Greek city states elsewhere (the islands of the Aegean, and what we now think of as Greece, maybe even southern Italy and Sicily–all were populated by Greeks back then) aided the Ionians in a rebellion. That annoyed the Persians into invading.

        One of the more emotional moments of my life was when I stood at Marathon, where the Athenians and Plataeans stood up to the Persians, greatly outnumbered, and defeated them. This was 490 BCE. The “Molon Labe” incident at Thermopylae, the naval battle of Salamis, and the battle of Plataea were all fought ten or more years later, during the Persians’ second attempt to subdue Greece. Note that we are midway between the two 2500 year anniversaries right now. If any of those battles had gone the other way, Western Civilization, as we know it, simply would never have existed, because all this preceded the classical Greek flowering centered in Athens over the following two centuries.

        The debt we owe to them is incalculable.

        • I love how legend supposedly say that the Persian King Darius I was so angered by the Ionian revolt and the Athen’s attempts to aid them, that he had a servant remind him before every dinner “My King, remember the Athenians.” I guess until he invaded Greece, he ate every dinner extremely angry.

  9. The governor of NY has publicly stated that there is no room in his state for people that own guns he doesn’t like. This is not the first guy asking for our deaths! This is fairly common amongst the gun grabber crowd. Death threats against the NRA officials, and other leaders of 2nd Amendment supporting groups have been documented here in this forum, so don’t seem surprised at this toad’s comment.

  10. Wow I checked out it’s fakebook page…the stupid is STRONG with it. Enough to get it banned. Found it on Peoplesmart-resides in Nashua,NH. “Terroristic threats”? I get a chuckle when losers threaten millions of good folks with guns…

    • New Hampshire, even Nashua which has gone down hill especially in the past 10 years, is 40 miles from Boston in meat space and 40 light years apart in attitudes about gun ownership. Don’t lump all of us in to a group with Mr. Mermer, aka Fat Bastard.

      • I don’t lump you in…heck I live in Cook county,Illinois. PLenty of jerkweeds to go around here…and thanks for removing the troll guys.

  11. Sweet jesus is this guy a MORON. Seriously… and I’m not just talking about this post. This Facebook is laden with anti gun and anti republican link he can find. And not even GOOD anti GOP links either. It’s vapid leftist BS.

  12. This thinking of anti-gunners is exactly why they are anti-gun. They truly want us dead, and many of them are frightened to think that if they owned a gun they would lose their control and gun down others who disagree with them. Thus, they assume we are like that and actually want to go out and kill people. They assume that we are like them.

    • This is backed up by the fact that almost all of the mass murderers are of the leftist/liberal bent. If not muslim. They both have the same mind set. Incredible homicidal rage combined with the imperative that all will be subservient to the state. All based on personal self-hatred and self-loathing.

  13. The threat of violence or death is implicit in any government program. And disarmament is the quintessential government program.
    Do you disagree with socialist schemes like welfare and social security? They’ll put a gun to your head and take your money anyway.
    Do you disagree with the drug war? They’ll put a gun to your head if you try to buy, sell, or consume narcotics without a permission slip.

  14. Someone should educate this idiot. Shooting police or soldiers is legal, if they intend to infringe your RKBA, or any of the constitution.

    Infringe

    verb

    • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

    synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach.

    There is no threat of violence, rather, the promise of the defense of the 2A, and the rest of the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

  15. Mr. Mermer, the reason ” molon labe ” is not a terrorist statement is that it states I will defend my property and rights from those who would illegally take them, and act illegally to do so. It does NOT, however, imply that, absent the condition above, I will come visit violence on you or anyone else.

  16. Surtender or else is what they did in Australia so yes there are number of the other side that would love to see us dead.

  17. The frightening thing is that little tyrants just like this one are already pervasive throughout the halls of government. They are the arrogant bastards who believe it is Nanny States right and responsibility to micromanage our lives. The founding fathers were rebels, by todays standards they probably would have been branded as terrorists.

    • Not probably. The government has already branded those of us that talk about constitutionally limited government as right wing terrorists.

  18. He’s not an outlier; seen plenty of nutjob antigunners saying the same or worse. But for all of the antigun nutjobs on their side, we have just as many nutjobs on our side of the fence as well.

    • No we don’t. While most are smart enough to not come right out and say it directly, this kind of mentality is a pillar of leftist thought, and a great example of why Utopianism is such a dangerous outlook. We have our crazies, but anger and a desire for violence to be done to those who disagree with us is NOT a pillar of our side or our ideology

      • True. This can be proven by the fact that gun-owners have the capability to act on violent impulses, yet you very rarely read a story where a legal gun owner who has always been a law-abiding citizens commits some type of violent act.

  19. “A man like Mermer has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it.”

  20. He seems like the type who would tackle an older gent in a Walmart because he happened to see a holster in a parking lot before the jacket went on to conceal it.

  21. Don’t feed the troll. And don’t bother heading over to FB to try to argue with a brainless twat like that guy. You have better things to do.

  22. Known as trolls or weasels or trouble-makers, however you want to label. They are likely narcissists with any number of other disorders. They enjoy poking the bear to see him roar, just for fun. Then poke him more while enraged. When on occasion the bear breaks away from its restraints, and one of these idiots is hurt or killed, the bear gets fingered by supporters of restraint makers. We are smarter than these people and always must not take the bait.

  23. I think this guy needs mental help.He probably has no job, still lives at home with MOMMY and is just trying to Piss people off! No issue should ever result in execution unless a person unlawfully uses his/her weapon. Obviously this person has somehow been wronged by someone personally(either a criminal or someone who uses firearms for sporting events like hunting ect} . Dude I think you really do need help. This is a prime example of this world being out of touch with reality. Please do yourself a favor by seeking PROFESSIONAL MENTAL HELP!!!

  24. Please explain to me how this does not constitute a terroristic threat and why a SWAT team is not knocking down this douchebag’s door.

  25. my usual reply to this intertubz bravado is: Mermer needs to tool up and lead the charge, otherwise he’s a big {insert pathetic body part here} and coward.

  26. Every movement attracts its share of idiots–even ours. I will say that since the gun-control movement is based on emotion more than reason, irrational fear more than rational calculation, and fantasy and fiction rather than reality and fact, it stands to reason that its share of idiots would be bigger than most.

  27. I welcome this guy to come and try to execute me. Anyway I have seen pro-gun people make threats of violence against anti-gun people, but not nearly as much as anti-gun people make them toward pro-gun people. It’s funny actually because they would never try to do it themselves, big brother government lives for them. Responsibility is dying, individuality is making way for conformity, don’t send your kids to the state’s schools.

  28. yes, they do. their hatred of us knows no bounds. f they get a chance it would be cattle cars, barbed wire , and a final soluton for us . It’s not the guns they hate, it’s us . The guns are ju an excuse .

  29. Hmmm. I’ll have to amble over to Walls of the City (don’t do that too often, after getting mocked for trying to provide some useful information there) and see if Linoge is whining yet about you referencing his site.

  30. Kind of hard to exterminate a group of people when they’ve got all the guns. This is precisely why the 2nd Amendment is so important.

    • The really amusing thing is that if he ends up getting shot, the suspect list is at least 150 million people he made a death threat to.

  31. Do Anti-Gunners Want You Dead?

    No. They’re just fantasizing about what they would do if they were men, and their fevered imaginations are getting it wrong.

  32. “No person is going to try and take your guns or try to kill you!”, You mean except for that one prick Adam Mermer and all of the other people that share his opinion?

  33. Can I take out a keyboard violence restraining order on this guy? You know, where armed goons come and extra-judicially end his 1st amendment rights because I complained? Sounds like policy this panty-waist would get behind.

  34. “Can someone explain why ‘Molon Labe’ isn’t considered a statement of terrorism and all who exclaim it to be jailed for inciting violence and treason?”
    If a Jew in Nazi Germany cried ‘Molon Labe’ to the Gestapo knocking on a door would that be a ‘statement of terrorism’ or ‘initing violence and treason’?
    If a farmer or shopkeeper cried ‘Molon Labe’ to General Gage’s troops at Lexington or Concord be a ‘statement of terrorism’ or ‘initing violence and treason’?
    OK, then; I guess you have your answer.
    You’re welcome.

  35. I keep firearms because of people like Adam Mermer. Mermer appears really crazy and wants people to die. I don’t want anyone to die and want to be left alone to shoot my paper and clay targets as I please. I neither want to meddle in, nor take any interest, in the business or affairs of Adam Mermer. I would hope Mermer would extend me the same courtesy. Alas no. Mermer wants me to die because I have a different opinion and have expressed that I would fight against those who would seek to strip the rights and freedoms from decent, good people (i.e. Molon Labe).

    Suppose for a moment that I did indeed relinquish my rights and forfeited my firearms to the state. How long will it be until Mermer (or others) again want me to die because I have a differing opinion that doesn’t coincide with their plan for the people of the United States?

    Also, Molon Labe implies that I would not comply and that I would resist. It implies a defensive stance -not an aggressive one. It does not imply I want anyone to die (unlike Adam Mermer’s position).

  36. Following the constitution is treason now?

    This guys worldview is so warped, the exact kind of person that would get lock step in line with whatever his socialist government wanted to do. Claims to have morals but advocates murdering innocent people.l just because they legally carry a firearm.

  37. “Stop being paranoid! We are not coming after you or your guns. But we reserve the right to pull guns on you and kill you if you don’t give up your guns.”

  38. Reading some of this guy’s other comments…

    These people REALLY should stop using the terms “well regulated” within the 2nd Amendment as a point to defend their incorrect view. It means the exact opposite – in fact it completely obliterates their argument.They are (excuse the pun) shooting themselves in the foot with that argument.

    “To secure ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists, urging passage of the Constitution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as “further guards for private rights.” In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of “shall nots,” telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.

    It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term “well regulated,” it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of “regulation” power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.”

  39. Both pro and anti gun people are fighting the last war so to speak. The reason that Progressives, you know, the people who follow a 19th dogma that failed in the 20th, have another agenda in mind to enforce their dictates. They don’t plan to send enforcers to kill you or send you off to Gulag. They have figured out that best way to control society is to let gangs enforce social order. That doesn’t work if the citizenry is armed. Support for gun control is strongest in areas controlled by Democrats and where the gangs are major players. The Democrats have been control of the black community for 50+ years. They keep control by destroying the family and civil society. Hordes of fatherless males go about terrorizing the law abiding and impregnating the next generation of single mothers. Progressive support for the abolition marriage is merely taking the experiment of the ghetto and applying it to the rest society. The objective is to create a self-enforcing concentration camp like social order. It seems like most the so-called anti-statist crowd has the same social agenda of the Progressives.

    • It seems like most the so-called anti-statist crowd has the same social agenda of the Progressives.
      Yeah, I am sure that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will whither away in Progressive Soviet areas.

  40. “Anti-gun extremism or the logical extension of the anti-gun ethos?”

    You’re presuming there’s a difference.

    Any system of beliefs, if taken to far extremes, by definition yields extremism.

    But in this case … yeah, what do you propose to use, baby seal clubs?

  41. Perhaps the police should investigate him for attempting to incite murder and terrorist acts against other US citizens.

  42. Do anti-gunners want you dead? Of course! Gun owners are in the way of the new Soviet Scientific Socialist State which will make the USA look like North Korea.

  43. So, send somebody with guns to murder somebody with guns, amirite? But more importantly, somebody else. Wouldn’t want to get the ol’ hands dirty, hmmm? And when it’s all over, you’ve murdered the armed populace by creating another armed populace who will undoubtably give up there gun because you asked nicely.

    Causation. It hurts.

  44. OK, Hackney’s comments are gone, along with all of those who responded to him. Please stop replying to comments that no longer exist.

    In the future, please send an email or something, because manually deleting all that bullshit is tiresome. Not to mention that those that subscribe to the post via email get an email every time you leave a comment. I’m looking at you, LarryinTX and the approximately 27 separate times you called him a moron. An email for every damn one of them. Right now I’m more irritated with you than with the guy who started the whole thing, troll or not.

  45. Do they want us gun owners dead? Of course they do! Antis see us as pure scum that should be eradicated. There is no reasoning with them because they run on pure emotion without any reasoning.

  46. The Second Amendment gives vitality and value to the First Amendment. With quiet, determined resolve, I exercise my 2A rights. With whining, boisterous bluster, Mr. Merger exercises his 1A rights. Well.

    It would seem that an armed society doesn’t necessarily ensure a polite society, after all. It does, however, ensure that loudmouth milquetoasts may resort to nothing more menacing than the rude words and violent fantasies of their own making.

  47. Well, it’s amusing to consider this pearl of manhood doesn’t realize a firearm is not needed to reduce his carbon emissions

  48. I can’t help but wonder why we never, ever see these kinds of bluster aimed against Muslims, or even against violent Islamist extremists. Why don’t the Mermers of the world ever post tweets like: “Islamists are a deadly threat to public safety and their execution should be legal”? Could it be that he *knows* such a tweet might get his head chopped off or his house firebombed, while calling for violence against law-abiding gun owners won’t?

    One of these days, some folks are going to start drawing conclusions from the different behaviors of the Left on how some people and institutions are publicly threatened and reviled, while others are not.

  49. Robert, Kudos for linking to Linoge. Hope you guys mend fences eventually. He does have some legitimate criticisms, which might benefit from recognition on your part.

  50. The Left, which includes the Progressives v2.0, are filled with hate- for “the Other”, for that is all they have, having abandoned a higher power, and morals and integrity in service to The End Justifies the Means.
    Haters got to Hate. And it consumes them in the end.

    When we have major media thinkers, pundits, and intellectuals who know very well the background of Hillary Clinton, to name one prominent example, and propose to promote her to POTUS, rather than denounce her proven past criminal and immoral acts, then you know we are at a major turning point, a vast sea change that says most Americans are done, over, and moving on, past the hypocrisy and even, the evil of the Left. It will take lots more time, to be enacted, and trickle down thru the LIVs, but it is happening, and as things get inevitably worse, thanks to the damage done to the economy by top-down command economy controls over health care, the auto industry, the regulatory costs of green propaganda…there will be much more pain, and denial.

    Here is a much better analysis- h/t Sultan Knish:
    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2014/02/hate-is-force-that-gives-left-meaning.html

Leave a Reply

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