CSGV Demands Reporter Emily Miller Be Fired for Pro 2A Stance

emilymiller

By Sara Tipton

This week the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence delivered a petition demanding that journalist Emily Miller be fired. They allege Miller has violated a “code of ethics” by maintaining a pro-gun stance on the air. On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Miller spoke at an event put on by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a pro-gun group, making statements that infuriated anti-gunners everywhere. They accuse Miller of advocating violent insurrection when she stated that “There’s the ‘cold, dead fingers’ option” if the organization’s political activism is unsuccessful. At the rally, Miller told attendees that the District of Columbia “…is not part of America, because they don’t recognize the Second Amendment.” . . .

Miller has publicly stood up to control activists for much of her career and has become a vocal mouthpiece for the gun rights movement. The CSGV claims she therefore has no business reporting in their area. “[Miller has] no business serving as the “chief investigative reporter” of a television station covering the region’s affairs because she speaks out against the “democratically-enacted gun laws of the District of Columbia and Maryland,” according to a press release put out by the CSGV.

The CSGV states that in its code of ethics, the Society of Professional Journalists states that journalists should “act independently” by avoiding “conflicts of interest, real or perceived” and “political…activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality.”

CSGV mouthpiece Ladd Everitt opines that,

“By the standards of her profession, Emily Miller has no business calling herself a journalist. Miller’s crusade against popular gun laws has been a professional one since the beginning. At this point, area residents can have no reasonable expectation that she will provide objective, impartial coverage on matters of concern to them. If Miller wishes to behave like a pundit and activist, then WTTG should replace her with an actual reporter.”

Apparently, expressing an opinion on the right to keep and bear arms is unwelcome in certain areas. But for some reason, the CSGV’s journalistic standards are different for reporters who oppose Second Amendment freedoms. We must have missed the anti-gun org’s demand that openly anti-gun journalists lose their jobs. Surely it’s just an oversight, though.

comments

  1. avatar DickDanger says:

    I thought these people hated Fox news to begin with? Why so butthurt? Oh yeah, it’s because someone has a different opinion than them. If this reporter was rabidly anti-gun, they would be celebrating her stance.

    1. avatar Noishkel says:

      Well that’s what this so called ‘progressive’ movement is all about. Attacking people who don’t agree with you to try and squelch honest discussion.

    2. avatar IdahoPete says:

      The real problem is that Emily Miller has attacked “the narrative.”

      From Stephen Hunter’s book, “I, Sniper”:
      “The narrative is the set of assumptions the press believes in, possibly without even knowing that it believes in them. It’s so powerful because it’s unconscious. It’s not that they get together every morning and decide “These are the lies we tell today”. No, that would be too crude and honest. Rather, it’s a set of casual, nonrigorous assumptions about a reality they’ve never really experienced that’s arranged in such a way as to reinforce their best and most ideal presumptions about themselves and their importance to the system and the way they’ve chosen to live their lives. It’s a way of arranging things a certain way that they all believe in without ever really addressing carefully. It permeates their whole culture. They know, for example, that Bush is a moron and Obama a saint. They know communism was a phony threat cooked up by right-wing cranks as a way to leverage power to the executive. They know Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, the response to Katrina was fucked up, torture never works, Cheney’s a devil, Biden’s a genius. Soft power good, hard power bad. Forgiveness excellent, punishment counterproductive, capital punishment a sin. … And the narrative is the bedrock of their culture, the keystone of their faith, the altar of their church. They don’t even know they’re true believers, because in theory they despise the true believer in anything. But they will absolutely destroy anyone who makes them question all that.”

  2. avatar pwrserge says:

    Dear CSGV…

    Go suck start a Glock. That is all.

    Signed,
    America

    1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

      The problem with your statement is that at some point they would realize that guns, no matter how hard you try, don’t just “go off” without pulling the trigger. This could devastating consequences to their worldview.

      Or is that your point?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Oh I’m sure that they can suck a bullet right out of the cartridge. Hell most of those clowns could suck a golfball through a garden hose.

        1. avatar Jack says:

          but…. isn’t that a “good thing?”

          🙂

        2. avatar JD says:

          Suck start a Harley.

        3. avatar Another Bob says:

          I would never let those lips defile my Harley. I mean how would you disinfect it after that gets on it.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          @Another Bob

          I find a combination of lime and baking soda works wonders.

  3. avatar MarkPA says:

    ‘ journalists should “act independently” by avoiding “conflicts of interest, real or perceived” and “political…activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality.” ‘
    By this reasoning, journalists must refrain from advocating for freedom of the press; or, any other Constitutionally-guaranteed right. We would have to denounce journalists who advocated for women’s suffrage; 18-year-old suffrage; safety from search and seizure; safety from coerced confessions.
    Or, perhaps, the 2A is “special”; some rights are more equal than others. Exactly which rights are sacred and which to be held-up for contempt?

    1. avatar JohnF says:

      Or “journalists should ‘act independently’” meaning “agree with the CSVG.” I have no doubt that if she had done the exact same things for the other side, they would be praising her journalism. Such hypocrites.

      It does show that Miller is getting the job done. Brava Emily!

  4. avatar MattG says:

    Freedom of the Press is a b**ch, ain’t it?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Not for them.

  5. avatar John L. says:

    That has to be the largest pot-kettle-black instance I’ve seen in a while.

    And on another note:
    “democratically-enacted gun laws of the District of Columbia and Maryland”

    Unless they were enacted by public referenda, ala California’s ballet proposition system, no they weren’t.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      Not to mention the CSGV speaks out against “democratically-enacted gun laws” (like concealed and open carry) all the time. Another classic case of “some animals are more equal than others.”

    2. avatar notalima says:

      So…

      Under this logic the entire staff at MSNBC/HuffPo, the NYT, etc. should be canned, no?

      “Professional Journalists states that journalists should “act independently” by avoiding “conflicts of interest, real or perceived” and “political…activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality.”

      I wonder if the staff at the ‘journalistic organizations’ that I listed have that printed on their toilet paper…

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Yup

    3. avatar Accur81 says:

      Word.

    4. avatar Dustin says:

      “That has to be the largest pot-kettle-black instance I’ve seen in a while.”

      I was about to say the same thing… Never in my life have I seen such extreme hypocrisy…

      “We speak out against basic human rights and tell lie upon lie to fool people into going along with us, but people who tell the truth and try to undo our lies in support of basic human rights; those people are evil and unethical!”

    5. avatar Custodian says:

      So…

      …let me get this straight…

      If D.C. and Maryland and say any other state passed slavery laws, legalizing it, in defiance of the constitution, they’d be cool with it?

  6. avatar Shire-man says:

    Okay. So using the same “code of ethics” we should start firing reporters and anchors until there are none left. Maybe end journalism as it currently exists altogether.
    It’d be nice to not have every single weather event presented as apocalyptic and to not have to listen to morons use made-up or incorrect terminology or pound the fear of nonexistent crime into the feeble hearts of paranoid fools and definitely nice to not have to hear the same crappy pop music in an endless loop in the background of some half-assed effort to pass off a YouTube clip off as news.

    Please, please, please, fire them all!

    News is sort of self-regulating. Those who care research. Those who do not care would not research and are empty vessels ready to be spoon fed any propaganda piece passed off as news by these journalists. Stop the spoon feeding of propaganda to morons and I bet our national average IQ will jump twenty points while the truly stupid fall back into obscurity causing no harm to anyone.

  7. avatar tdiinva says:

    I’m sure Fox News will fire her today so that they will not have to face the wrath of CSGV.

  8. avatar Jay-El says:

    So that’s how Piers Morgan got sacked! It was CSGV, the arbiters of ethics in journalism, ensuring the lack of bias among the members of the Fourth Estate.

  9. avatar Publius says:

    Meh, Emily is a typical Republican who supports some freedoms, but not ones that are against her religious views. While she shouldn’t be fired for this, I’ve lost any interest in supporting her.

    1. avatar foggy says:

      I’m sure that she’ll be very hurt once she finds out that internet handle “Pubis” no longer supports her.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Long as she still has “Foy”, she’ll be fine. Huh?

        1. avatar foggy says:

          “Whoosh”

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Right on! How about we find somebody who supports the idea of freedom?

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Because the epitome of “freedom” is murdering babies in the womb, natch.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          It cannot be a “baby” until it is born.

          You may or may not be able to make an argument that a fetus deserves protection from abortion (on account of having differing DNA from the soon-to-be mother, etc.) but misappropriating the word “baby” isn’t a rational argument, it is simply a crude attempt to appeal to emotion.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          @ Steve: Semantics. Ever hear the term “unborn child”? On the other side of the coin, ever hear the term “product of conception”? The argument over the precise nature of the life inside the womb determines whether the word “baby” is appropriate or not.

        3. avatar SteveInCO says:

          @Robert,

          Yes it is semantics. Call things what they are. It’s a fetus

          “Unborn child” is preferable to what Chip did, because at least it makes a very important distinction that the word “baby” by itself doesn’t.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Fine. Insert “unborn child” into my statement. The point remains. Are we done with semantic logical fallacy?

        5. avatar doesky2 says:

          @Steve….So I assume that when you meet up with a friend or couple that is pregnant you ask them…..

          ….”Hey, did you know what the sex is of your clump of cells?”

        6. avatar Another Robert says:

          Steve–Funny thing, your reply reminded me of my old school days, I was doing “bus study hall” in a room that was formerly an Ag classroom. Had a jar with a little pig in it, labeled “foetal pig”. Yes, it was a fetus, but also a pig. And a human fetus is a fetus, but also a human. I kind of see the point you are making about “baby” vs. “fetus” and even “unborn child”. I just think it’s a pretty weak point. If the pro-abortion people can call it a “product of conception”, and call the little dismembered corpses “medical waste”, I’m not going to get too bent out of shape when someone on the other side of the issue calls it a “baby”.

        7. avatar Stan says:

          @SteveInCO – then there is always the fact that the Chinese celebrate the first birthday of a child 3 months after it is born since it is considered a separate individual at conception. Getting hung up on irrelevant semantics seems to me an exercise in Political Correctness in an effort to divert attention from the basic issue.

        8. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Getting hung up on irrelevant semantics seems to me an exercise in Political Correctness in an effort to divert attention from the basic issue.

          Perhaps you are actually making my case here. There is an awful lot of infanticide (by which I mean, just to be clear, post birth murder) in China, largely due to the one child policy and a cultural preference for male children; perhaps because many don’t see any reason not to kill it the day after it is born, after all it’s just one day older than it was yesterday, right?

          My complaint about using the word “baby” for the unborn, is that it directly implies that abortion equals infanticide (the killing of babies). If we POTG are right to get upset over the use of terms like “assault weapon,” “high capacity magazine” and the hoplophobes’ confusion between full auto and semi auto, then the “pro choice” side is just as justified to get irritated by this.

          The “pro life” side can make many powerful arguments for its case, that a not-yet-born human has a right to life and that deserves protection, without having to try to muddy the water by implying equivalence between the two very different states of not-yet-born and born. That just looks dishonest, and if you need to be dishonest…

    3. avatar Noishkel says:

      Freedom on conscious: The right to follow one’s own beliefs in matters of religion and morality: a constitution guaranteeing freedom of conscience.

      There’s a really worrying trend in this nation where it’s becoming just fine to completely bash people for their freedom on conscious. Usually it’s people on the left end of things raining shait all over someone just because they’re pro life. This brand of leftist stupidly really needs to go.

      Now this shouldn’t be taken as a call to restrict others freedom of expression via the making statements against Mrs. Miller here. It’s this idea that having a moral objection to something some how makes this woman a bad person and not worthy of her own freedoms.

  10. avatar KingSarc48625 says:

    Damn, and I thought Feinstein’s carry permit was pure hypocrisy.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Feinstein does not have a carry permit. Did at one time, but that was many years ago, when a group of radicals was gunning for her. And her California CCW, way back then even, was not valid in D.C. I am sure that she could apply for one now, but under the restrictive concealed carry law, she would never be able to carry it, since the law precludes carry in public buildings (which is already the case in the Capitol Building and every other federal facility), or near any diplomats. And besides which, she has body guards.

      1. avatar Noishkel says:

        Hey now… don’t forget how how Feinstein used to use her CCW to fight terrorist that wanted to bomb her house.

  11. avatar ADC USN/Ret says:

    Love the tongue-in-cheek finish!

  12. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Just more evidence that Emily Miller is directly over the target. Keep up the good work!

  13. avatar GS650G says:

    The unconstitutional “democratically-enacted gun laws of the District of Columbia and Maryland,”
    there i fixed it. These people are pretty ballsy. Imagine what would happen if we demanded some of the anti gun mouthpieces be fired from their job.

  14. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Ladd Everitt has no business wasting the oxygen of this planet needed to support good people.

  15. avatar Steve says:

    So every journalist who rails for gun control (i.e. everyone at CNN, MSNBC, etc.) should also be fired for THEIR non-objectivism.

    That’s the way it works, right?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Of course not, Steve. We are talking about elitists. Concepts like rules, ethics, laws, tolerance, etc. only apply to their opposition.

  16. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Emily and WTTG should both send CSGV a big thank you note. With flowers. This free publicity will be great for both TV ratings and book sales.

    As for ethics in journalism – The cure for unethical journalists is to stop consuming what they produce. Which is basically how we got rid of Piers Morgan.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      “The cure for unethical journalists is to stop consuming what they produce. Which is basically how we got rid of Piers Morgan.”

      Which is another reason why proggies hate capitalism.

  17. avatar actionphysicalman says:

    Would you rather that they were doing something more effective?

    1. avatar John L. says:

      Well, what else are they supposed to use, harsh language?

      Well, actually, since they hatenguns so much, I guess so.

  18. avatar OakRiver says:

    If CSGV wants to enact such a literal interpretation I hope they are ready for the unintended consequences; specifically the job loss of those journalists in favour of gun control

  19. avatar Texsylvanian says:

    Wait, every other reporter on the air maintains an anti-gun stance but that’s not a violation of the code of ethics?

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Of course not. Integrity is only a one way street.

  20. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    What passes for “journalism” these days is pretty much devoid of ethics. So I really don’t see the problem.

  21. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    In other words gun grabbers have no facts to refute any of Ms. Miller’s assertions/positions.

    Since gun grabbers cannot neutralize Ms. Miller’s message, they are trying to neutralize Ms. Miller’s voice — her right to Free Speech.

    As we have said time and time again, people who oppose the Second Amendment oppose all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.

    I suppose gun grabbers deserve some credit for first seeking a non-violent way to silence Ms. Miller.

  22. avatar Joseph says:

    Ahhh, the party of diversity, equality, and inclusion…as long as you agree with them.

  23. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    They actually have a valid point. Now if they would only apply it universally, we could get somewhere. Until then, thanks but no thanks.

    1. avatar Greg says:

      because she speaks out against the “democratically-enacted gun laws of the District of Columbia and Maryland, csgv press release. Oh the laws that violate the Constitution the democratically-enacted Constitution? The one that SCOTUS ruled on twice in the past few years that bearing armed is a basic human right. Are those the laws she spoke out on?

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        You point out my thought as well–laws of the majority, even if democratically elected, cannot and do not overrule constitutional rights.

  24. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    Fire Rachel Maddow first.

  25. avatar schernobyl says:

    When i start seeing MSM reports with actual facts and unbiased reporting of all issued then maybe CSGV has a point but by then unicorns and rainbows will rain from the sky

  26. avatar Jack Burton says:

    Hey is there someplace we can form a petition to get her a raise? I think she deserves one for all the grief anti-constitutionalists are giving her.

    PETITION TO GET HER A RAISE!!!

  27. avatar Another Robert says:

    Dunno how this will shake out, but I do know a local reporter for WBAP in Dallas-Ft. Worth was suspended without pay for speaking at a county Republican Party picnic. And that Dan Rather got a complete pass for being the “keynote speaker” at a Dem Nat’l Committee event. Seems to kind of depend on just who it is you appear to be supporting.

  28. avatar Greg says:

    because she speaks out against the “democratically-enacted gun laws of the District of Columbia and Maryland, csgv press release. Oh the laws that violate the Constitution the democratically-enacted Constitution? The one that SCOTUS ruled on twice in the past few years the being armed is a basic human right. Are those the laws she spoke out on?

  29. avatar Sammy says:

    “act independently” by avoiding “conflicts of interest, real or perceived” and “political…activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality.”

    Yea. It would appear they don’t get CNN or MSNBC.

  30. avatar Paul says:

    I am going to put in a plug for a different TV news anchor — Melissa Gaona on WDBJ in Roanoke VA. She was recently promoted to the anchor position and when she got it, among her other initial stories was a feature on HER going to both a local indoor and National Forest outdoor shooting range and firing away, I think even shooting an AR, as part of a “what to do in your spare time locally” series. OK, this is SWVA, not NoVA, and she is originally from TX and served in the Army before going into journalism. But nonetheless, what a breath of fresh air.

  31. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I’m liking her more all the time. She’s really exposing the BS and CSGV just can’t stand it.

  32. avatar KeithM says:

    “By the standards of her profession, Emily Miller has no business calling herself a journalist. Miller’s crusade against popular gun laws has been a professional one since the beginning. At this point, area residents can have no reasonable expectation that she will provide objective, impartial coverage on matters of concern to them….”

    But it is OK for Bloomberg Inc. to pay journalists to be indoctrinated to more effectively disseminate the gun control “message”? No hypocrisy here.

  33. avatar RetLEO says:

    No surprise here. The anti-gun crowd is chock full of hypocrisy. Angry that she’s advocating against laws when they do exactly that. Angry that she represents a particular view when nearly every talking head not on Fox expresses their opinions against the 2A with alarming regularity. Angry that she supports an inalienable right enshrined in the Bill of Rights…while exercising their pens through another inalienable right enshrined in the same Bill of Rights.

    What a bunch of jackwagons (apologies to R. Lee Ermy who most certainly would not want to be associated with these ‘people.’)

  34. avatar Justin_GA says:

    It’s truly offensive call themselves a non biased news organization.

  35. avatar Gatha58 says:

    We should all start an email campaign and congratulate Emily on her reports and her stance on the second amendment. Tell her to go tell the CSGV to go pound sand. They think it is fine to spout propaganda against gun ownership and 2A proponents. But if anyone dares to stand up to them and show the opposite view they are appalled. Wonder if they can spell “hypocrite” ? I agree with showing both sides of different viewpoints. But that seems to have gone out the window a long time ago. Each network seems to spout their own brand of propaganda and slant the news in the direction that goes along with their preconceived viewpoints.

  36. avatar Dustin says:

    If the Devil curses your name, you must be doing a hell of a lot of something right!

  37. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    I’m in love with Emily. Don’t tell my wife…

  38. avatar PavePusher says:

    Hmmmm… how about we trade Miller for the entire cast at MSNBC.

    I hate to do that to her, but sometimes you have to take one for the team….

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      How about we don’t?

      Emily would be hard for us to replace. They can find more libtard hoplophobe “journalists” anywhere. Almost any C-stringer at a local station in BFE would jump at the chance.

  39. avatar Tom says:

    The same CSGV that says if you resist any government actions, no matter how unconstitutional or outright illegal, you are a insurrectionist. This confirms my assertion that CSGV hates the First Amendment. And believes in the tyranny of the majority.

  40. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    “Ethics” in journalism…

    That’s funny, right there. I guess editing video and audio do not fit into the “unethical” equation.

  41. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “[Miller has] no business serving as the “chief investigative reporter” of a television station covering the region’s affairs because she speaks out against the “democratically-enacted gun laws of the District of Columbia and Maryland,”

    If that’s their reasoning then what if the laws in question were in support of slavery? Abolition of slavery was about rights of the individual and Emily Miller’s fight is likewise. It’s painfully obvious that their excuse is only applicable when the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence agrees with the law. Hypocritical, flimsy bullshit to further an anti-Liberty agenda.

    I hope that the station stands firmly with Emily Miller. They ought to Kroger CSGV’s nonsense right away. Kudos to you, Emily Miller and thank you for speaking up for what is right!

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Come to think about it, to a large extent “speaking out against democratically-enacted laws” is a large part of what investigative reporters are supposed to do, isn’t it?

  42. avatar DetroitMan says:

    So the gun grabbers believe as much in our 1st Amendment rights as they do the 2nd Amendment. Next they’ll be after our 4th Amendment rights. Oh wait, they already are. All of us here are shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

    Of course if we were to point this out to them, they would call us paranoid and delusional. After all, the world would be a better place without guns (and free speech, a free press, and privacy in our homes and of our persons). The government doesn’t really want to take our rights away, and we are foolish to think that they do. No need for anyone except the police and the military to be armed. Everyone will sleep better at night once the government has the unchallenged power to tell us what we can and can’t do, say, think, etc.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      “I saw a movie the other day where only the police and military had guns. It was called ‘Schindler’s List.’ ” Stole that from a gun blog somewhere.

  43. avatar Nelson says:

    Journalists have ethics??

    Pause. BUWAHAHAHAHA!!

    The Hoplophobic MSM’s own bias aside, that’s rich, coming from a bunch of idiots whose views are echoed in majority of MSM outlets, that already natively lean anti-gun to begin with.

    Now that said, even as hilariously as fraudulent as the current ‘legal’ system con job maybe, they were at least honest when they ruled in a case of former Fox affiliate reporters who sued their own local Fox station for lying/propagandizing and censoring their report on MAIG’s Shannon Twat’s ex employer Monsatan and their use of bovine growth hormones, the court in their for once honest infinite wisdom clarified once and for all what everyone awake has always known: ‘news’ is not journalism, but entertainment!

    As such, in fact: LYING is a 1st Amendment protected form of free speech!

    And doubly as such, according to the court ruling, essentially: the ‘news’ can skew, lean biased, and in fact LIE, without any liabilities! Because satire, parody, comedy, and entertainment are all protected 1st Amendment free speech media.

    xD

    So really, for these hoplophobes to feign indignant at non-existent ethics in journalism is like a 73yo precocious retard asking whether having 10 fingers are normal! xD

  44. avatar Still Laughing says:

    Most of her work involves simply recounting the hardships of law abiding citizens such as those who want to get a gun permit or the consequences of possessing a single piece of spent brass in Washington D.C. This is now somehow an undemocratic screed so corrosive to the mental stability of her readers that she should be fired?

    Why can’t the anti gunners stand to look in the mirror? or engage in a debate of facts? Instead they always try to shut down the conversation like shouting “racist!”, “climate change denier” or ” blood in the streets”….

  45. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    the District of Columbia “…is not part of America, because they don’t recognize the Second Amendment.” . . . Well, she got that right.

  46. avatar Icabod says:

    Given the complaints from CSGV, doesn’t this qualify Emily for a nice bonus?

  47. avatar foo dog says:

    This is the second try by CSGV to create a bogus news event and “trade it up the chain” for credibility at a mainstream news outlet.

    Remember when they featured a change.org petition to fire Emily? Within a day the POTG at various websites spontaneously responded and overwhelmed that tally, with more than the same.

    CSGV is simply a propaganda site paid for by rich elites who know whats best for the rest of us little people.
    As Bloomberg found out with MAIG, MDA, Everytown and now the various little fakey state GunSense chapters, the vast majority is not buying it, and the proof its failing is in the continuing decline, falling off the cliff of the “mainstream” progressive news entities, MSNBC and CNN most prominently.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/02/msnbc-suffers-lowest-ratings-in-a-decade-202135.html

  48. avatar JJ48 says:

    I think a lot of their hatred comes, not from Emily supporting the Second Amendment, but from her being a WOMAN who supports it! Doesn’t she know that ALL women are supposed to think guns are icky, needless things, and that the only reason some men feel the “need” for guns is to compensate for their inadequacies?

  49. avatar MontieR says:

    “democratically-enacted gun laws of the District of Columbia and Maryland,”. Aparently DC and maryland are not part of the United States as neither are bound by our constitution.

  50. avatar Anthony H. says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMQ3ax7fsX4 These folks are as ignorant and haters of freedom as they come!!!

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