Dana Loesch Threatened By Internet Troll

This one goes into the “dumbass thug picked the wrong target” file. Second Amendment advocate and NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch had an incident with an online troll who began making threatening phone calls, the Washington Times reports.

The troll, who goes by the user name “DaynuhEatinLash” on Twitter, told Ms. Loesch that “u will be assaulted by me” on June 23. He subsequently followed up with other harassing messages, asking Ms. Loesch if she would shoot him if he assualted her, “[c]ause I plan to.” The harassment then extended into threatening phone calls when she addressed the situation with authorities on July 11.

“Be aware — the guy on Twitter just called me and threatened to come to my house. I’m calling the police,” she tweeted. “I recorded the call of the man who called me and threatened to hurt me. On the phone with the police now. ‘You’re going to learn your lesson,’ he threatened.”

The individual then called while law enforcement personnel were inside Mrs. Loesch’s home.

Although I may occasionally disagree with her, I like her because she walks her talk. In addition to being a political advocate for the right to keep and bear arms, she trains hard on armed and even unarmed self-defense. Anyone who takes their personal self defense seriously enough to keep up the training over a course of years is a force to be reckoned with, and is far from the definition of ‘soft target’.

At this time, the suspect is still at large, but if he’s foolish enough to try something, I would like to respectfully say that my money is on Ms. Loesch.

comments

  1. avatar achmed says:

    I disagree with her because she’s a bible thumper and brings a lot of conservative stuff into the gun debate that does not belong there. I may happen to agree with – for example – laPierre’s criticism of Obamacare, but it is still dumb because it narrows the appeal. NRA should be about gun rights, period.

    All that aside, hope she’s OK and like you said dumbass picked the wrong target. Front sight press press.

    1. avatar John E> says:

      because heaven forbid we should be more than a single issue voter, or thinker for that matter.

      1. avatar NorincoJay says:

        Citizens can be more than a single issue voter. But as a life member that donates money regularly to the NRA it’s not for their conservative views. It’s to keep the 2nd intact.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Anyone who’s thinking they can marry continuing 2nd Amendment Freedom to any form of liberalism is mentally playing with themselves without lubrication. NOTICE, I said “marry”, lots of people f-around with the idea, but it’s not something that’ll work in any way, shape, or measure, long-term.

          You don’t have to “study” history to know that, but it’ll help if you at least look it over.

          YES, it’s not a one-issue issue. Conservatism is what keeps us together, it’ll be what puts it back together if Society falls apart. There is NO two-ways about it.

          IF YOU NEED A RECENT EXAMPLE TRY:

          Yesterday, Venezuela’s COMMUNIST POS President announced that it was putting the purchase of FOOD, and any other seriously wanted consummables UNDER MILITARY CONTROL, so that it can stamp out those that are against the president, and yet some POS (D) people here nearly out-voted the Hillary-for-satan camp with the professed COMMUNIST Bernie Sanders.

          That’s not a cause for some self-reflection. That’s a cause for Civil War,

        2. avatar rip_vw32 says:

          Joe R… two things…

          First: Communist is not the same as Socialist – which is what Bernie professed to be (at least by the strictest definition of the two terms)… “communism is a political system, socialism is primarily an economic system that can exist in various forms under a wide range of political systems”

          Second: NRA is a pro-2a organization, and is made up of a lot of individuals – most of whom value individual freedoms over government control – that excludes them from traditional conservative values, since conservative is a political ideology that requires the government to tell the citizens what they can and can’t do.

          Just ask yourself this… if it is ok for the government to direct/control/mandate what someone can/can’t do according to the conservative values, why would it be any different for them to exhort the same for Progressive/Liberal values?

          No thank you to both… less government = happier people

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          rip_

          Liberal, Progressive, Communist ARE ALL THE SAME THING. It’s all the same stick of baloney, in varying with slices.

          Sanders IS a professed COMMUNIST. I am not going to bother you with a cite. IF HE’S A SOCIALIST, THAT’S BAD ENOUGH. He and hill-o-crap have been trying to out-communist each other the whole campaign, You can try to develop a label that doesn’t leave a bad taste in anyone’s mouth, but it’s a SYSTEMIC PROBLEM (like an OLESTRA SYMPTOM). We’ve wasted a lot of blood, sweat, tears, time, talent, tools, treasure HUNTING socialists, because
          IT’S
          WORTH
          IT.

          If that’s what you’re selling, then #NaCl.

        4. avatar Joe R. says:

          rip_

          + “Government” don’t mean sh_t. Government is made up of your stupid neighbors who needed a job.

          We ONLY get along by “Societal Agreement” that is prosecuted STRICTLY BETWEEN PAIRS of people. Those pairs can coalesce to form larger groups but the agreement is between each party of the pair. Societal Agreement is STRICTLY MADE UP OF VERY FEW INVIOLATE, AND INDEFEASIBLE THINGS, THAT HAVE
          A L W A Y S
          BEEN THE CASE. Those things have invariably been the basis of true Conservatism.

          A N D Y E S !

          SOCIETY CAN ENFORCE ANYTHING IT WILL. Sometimes (if not often times) WITHOUT ANY (additional) WARNING.

        5. avatar ClearThru says:

          “Joe, here, eat this Snickers…”

        6. avatar rip_vw32 says:

          Joe R…

          First: Reading comprehension much?

          Second: Being a conservative is being a tool of the gov’t….

        7. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          “The goal of socialism is communism.”

          -Vladimir Illyich Lenin

      2. avatar Warren says:

        The issue with having a single-issue lobbying group deciding to advocate/push multiple issues, is that they risk alienating members who might have a strong enough opinion on those other issues that don’t align with what’s being pushed, and lose those lobbying dollars. I’m a member of the NRA (amongst other gun rights groups), and that’s what I give them money to fight for. Nothing else. Anything else is a misuse of my membership dues.

        1. avatar Mitch says:

          Exactly. I’m ultra-conservative, but I don’t want gun rights groups pushing anything but gun rights. We’ve got a hard enough time keeping the Second Amendment intact without alienating anyone. (That said, I’m not interested in allying myself with racists, Nazis, Commies or Islamic terrorists, even if they are pro-gun.)

          I see no reason we should alienate left-wing and Democrat people of the gun. Do I disagree with them on tons of other issues? Absolutely. But that’s no reason to drive them into the arms of the gun grabbers.

        2. avatar achmed says:

          Right exactly. There’s nothing wrong or contradictory with somebody supporting the Second Amendment and also happening that gay people should be able to marry or that we should do something to fix dumb counterproductive US foreign policy. Gun rights are not a package deal with all the other conservative stuff. They’re about civil rights. As others have stated, stop misusing my membership dues and stay on message.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      “I disagree with her because she’s a bible thumper and brings a lot of conservative stuff into the gun debate that does not belong there.”

      If this is how you define a “debate” then maybe it doesn’t need you.

      1. avatar Jack Clancy says:

        Agree

      2. avatar achmed says:

        ? – comment unclear.

        1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          Troll.

    3. avatar rdsii64 says:

      While I’m not the most religious person either, the term “bible thumper” is a derogatory term. If you don’t like her religious stance so be it, but please be the adult in the room and refrain from name calling!

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        If you don’t like her religious stance, that’s fine, if you’re stupid enough to read “separation of Church and state” anywhere in our founding documents YOU ARE LOST. But even if it were there IT IS AND WOULD BE, HIGHLY IMPROPER for the U.S. Government, OR ANYONE ELSE, to attempt to reduce TO SUPERSTITION the idea that this country was founded by a group of men whose actions were IN ABSOLUTE DEFERENCE AND SHRINKING AWE of my LORD, HE WHO IS; FATHER OF JESUS; AND WHOSE SPIRIT IS CALLED “HOLY” (because some of you people are seriously f’d up about that).

        Those founding fathers said that GOD gave you all your rights. The 2nd Amendment just recited how you were empowered to defend them YOURSELF, AND SOVEREIGNLY, in the temporal nature and time of being on this earth.

        If that gets you chafed, you can go scratch.

        1. avatar ClearThru says:

          “Joe, here, have a second Snickers…”

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          At least Thru didn’t call me ‘wrong’.

        3. avatar Elijah Decker says:

          “Amendment I. *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

          The US Federal Government was meant to be secular from the outset. This is where people get separation of church and state from.

        4. avatar CarlosT says:

          “Separation of church and state” was Jefferson’s phrase describing what he thought the meaning of the First Amendment should be. The Founders had varying degrees of religious belief, from very devout to as non-religious as people got those days.

          The Constitution itself, however, contains no references to God, and there are only two references to religion:

          Article VI, Paragraph 3:

          The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

          And the First Amendment:

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          The Founders had had many experiences with religion officially mixed with government, and they weren’t pleased with the results. The Constitution was set up so people would participate as citizens, not representatives of sects.

          It has worked well, most of all for religion. Religion thrives in the US like it does in no Western democracy, and in more variety. This would have been impossible with a government imposed religion smothering down on everyone.

        5. avatar Joe R. says:

          Carlos –
          The Declaration covers it plenty. The Declaration says, if enough (D)heads sh_t on the Constitution NO SWEAT,
          JUST START OVER. (and keep enough guns around to thin the (D) vote for what comes next)
          1¶ the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,
          2¶ We hold these truths to be self-evident. . . they are endowed by their Creator
          6¶ appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world. . .with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence

        6. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          The separation of church and state that Jefferson mentioned was meant more to keep government out of religion than to keep religious beliefs out of elected officials.

          The constitution doesn’t mention God because it does not contain an explanation of the philosophy behind it. It’s a legal document and contains the laws intended to govern the government. The philosophical explanation behind it is contained within the declaration of independence, which closes with a prayer to God and mentions that rights are granted by God.

          Jefferson was a conventional Christian at the time, becoming a deist layer in life.

          There is no indication of any intent to prevent religious beliefs from guiding the formation of policy or legislation. They only intent was to deny the government authority to control religious beliefs or to form a state run church.

      2. avatar achmed says:

        Fair enough bible thumper was probably a little out of line.

        Can I call Mike Huckabee a bible thumper?

    4. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      Ms. Loesch is a small-govt, dare I say it “Tea Party” person(*), so her position on guns comes within a larger P O V. Not the otherr way around.

      (*) “Tea Party” before they got memed, meaning Taxed Enough Already, advocating policies of Constitutionally Limited Govt, Fiscal Responsibility, and Free Markets.

      It turns out you can Alinsky a group, just like an individual. The anti’s are constantly trying to do this with the N R A.

    5. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

      Bible thumper? Nice way to alienate a significant portion of the gun community pal. I don’t particularly agree with liberal gun owners but you don’t here me calling them a bunch of granola eating Prius driving unicorn loving fags. Remember that the POTG are a diverse crowd. Don’t make fun of my Bible and I won’t make fun of the fact you are some meteosexual who wears eye liner with no moral compass.

      1. avatar achmed says:

        LOL. I’m a pretty disappointing metro-sexual!

        The point IS that POTG are a diverse crowd. That exactly why it is counterproductive when the NRA get off message and goes on about issues other than gun rights. Phew! Sorry about using “bible thumper”.

        1. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

          No problem. Appreciate the acknowledgement.

      2. avatar Elijah Decker says:

        You don’t derive your morality from the Bible unless you stone homosexuals and adulterers to death. Most Christians are just atheists in denial. If most of them heard a voice in their head claiming to be The Lord God Almighty, who told them to go kill the unbelievers, they’d probably seek psychological help.

        1. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

          Wow…..just wow. Amazes me the amount of hate and disdain for Christians amongst POTG. I would tespond to your statement but it is full tilt stupid. You clearly have had some bad life experiences to broad brush Christian folk. I actually feel sorry for people like you. So deluded and blind.

    6. avatar ThomasR says:

      Umm, hate to tell you achmed, but it was loud and proud bible thumping conservatives that built this country to become the most free economic power house of the world. It was those same bible thumping conservatives that put us on the moon.

      And ever since the evils of the godless communists that are liberal/progressives came out of hiding in the sixties; in the schools, media and the government, and rhe bible thumping conservatives have been pushed out of the main decision makung power centers of government, and industry, we have been on a steady down ward slide into the depths of third world status where real third world countries are beating us in literacy, science and engineering.

      We have even reached the degraded and contemptible state, under the leadership of those that look with contempt upon true godfearing conservatives, to begging for rides from the Russians for rides into space.

      So tell me achmed. From past history of performance, who do you think will be the ones to rebuild this country, once those that have contempt for bible thumping conservatives, have destroyed this once great nation?

      1. avatar achmed says:

        Frankly I meant no disrespect for religion – although it obviously came across that way. I’m basically a “C &E Catholic” (Christmas and Easter).

        We’ve had all that great progress you mention because of the rule of law and property rights, frankly. Niall Ferguson’s books are good in this regard. And we went to the moon because the government expended a great deal of our tax money on it (which was a good thing certainly).

        Like it or not many “small government conservatives” are hypocrites in that they like a big intrusive government when it comes to trying to regulate things they personally find immoral. (or things the bible or some other book tells them are immoral).

        Either way the NRA pushing conservative talking points about Benghazi, Clinton Emails, gays, Obamacare, whatever . . is dumb. Plain and simple. It just alienates people who support gun rights but may feel differently about other things.

        Obviously “bible thumper” offended people, my apologies.

        1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

          “Either way the NRA pushing conservative talking points about Benghazi, Clinton Emails, gays, Obamacare, whatever . . is dumb. Plain and simple. It just alienates people who support gun rights but may feel differently about other things.”

          Well, you can *very carefully* make some points about government competence, collateral damage, and selective application (often for retaliation or graft), to argue that “gun control” might be implemented no better than anything else the govt does.

          I prefer to use examples that haven’t so much been claimed by one side or the other, so “no-knock warrants”, “domestic surveillance”, and “aggressive policing of minorities”, and of course, the casual abuses of RICOH, Civil Asset Forfeiture, and financial system restrictions.

          Sometimes it’s fun. “Sooooo, you want to make having a single cartridge in the wrong place illegal. Mix in civil asset forfeiture and what’s to stop them from trying to confiscate an entire ferry, because of a couple seeds found in a crack in a railing. (It happened. Look it up.)”

          Ya usually get: “Cartridges aren’t whacky-tobacky, which is harmless.”

          That lets you make the point again: “The point ain’t whether the stuff is dangerous or not, but what *else* they’ll do with the authority you want to grant them. Who gets caught up in the dragnet?”

          On guns, there’s that lovely example of over-prosecution, with the single mom busted in NJ. The closest we have to a generally-known abuse of the data collected is that journalist’s cross-hairs map of gun owners. Sadly, there isn’t yet a story accepted as truth of them abusing the info like COINTELPRO during the ’60s. Fast and Furious kinda fits the need, but the story got muddied up before it got embedded in the zeitgeist.

        2. avatar ThomasR says:

          The reality achmed, and one that liberal/progressives do their best to obscure, is that those that identify as christian in this country is still about 75% of the american population.

          Christians are the vast majority in this country. And one of the best parts of this country is that we have learned to keep mostly the fight over what that means to the private sphere. But the stats also show that gun owners that support the second amendment are even more conservative and christian than even the general population.

          So while I respect your ability to make fun of “Bible thumpers”, (which you did apologize for),you were also making fun of the majority religious belief of our country, and by corollary, making fun of the the better than majority belief system of a majority of gun owners.

          So you do have freedom of expression, which I will fight and die to protect, but you should also realize that you are also attacking the majority of those you should hope will die to defend your second amendment rights.

        3. avatar achmed says:

          ThomasR – Well. not exactly. Yes 75% of the country is Christian. I’m Catholic, have been a registered Republican since 1989, and actually did serve in Northern Iraq to defend your rights by the way. But fewer and fewer people really want the government in people’s bedroom and trying to legislate morality. That’s a good thing. Frankly, tolerance is an American value too and one that some people have forgotten about. By “bible thumper” I didn’t mean to refer to religious people generally – whom I respect – but public figures and politicians who want to jam their religion into every sphere of American life.

        4. avatar ThomasR says:

          I personally agree that the government has no place to legislate what two consenting adults choose to do between each other. Just as G-d gives us the freedom of choice as to whether to follow his laws, but the allows us to pay the price when we reject them.

          In the same way, the first Christians did not require Roman law to enforce G-ds laws upon other Christians. The early Christians probably used the same methods as the Amish of today, which would be shunning if one of their own was to violate their agreed upon laws. But for those not Amish, it would not have the force of law backed by a gun as the laws of today do.

          So if at some future date, a member of any sect decided to reject said sects laws, they could leave, with no “Legal” penalty, which could include incarceration or even death.

          But in the end, my point still stands. While all people are welcome that choose to defend the constitution and all of our civil rights, that believe in G-d, or not; in the end, the demographics of the vast majority standing in the future day of the return of original intent of the constitution, with all of the duly enacted amendments as was constitutionally enacted. (Which means most of the governmental additions since the creation of the federal reserve to present will disappear) will be mostly Christian.

    7. avatar JohnF says:

      The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        The enemy of my enemy, if not my outspoken friend, is MY ENEMY.

        If your friendship with me causes any loss of friendship between you and your friends then tie a pork chop around your neck, because that is YOUR DOG.

      2. avatar ThomasR says:

        Up to a point JohnF. But in the end, the reality is that Christians are about 77 to eighty percent in the military and about the same in the police..They reflect the American population which are a majority of various denominations of Christian.
        .

        Christians are still the vast majority in this country. The liberal/progressives would like to make the narrative that we are some how a fringe group, but the reality is quite different; it is in fact the godless that are in reality a tiny minority in our country, as it is for the entire world. Christians are over 2 billion world wide, the largest religious group,. The fact is that world wide, athiests and agnostics are less than 500 million, one of the smallest belief systems in existence.

        In the end, we need every person to fight the good fight for freedom, but the reality is that in the end, it will be the christians that will decide if we will continue as a free country, or not.

    8. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

      I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying re: NRA and single issue focus, Achmed…but I also have spent a lot of time over the past six months wondering whether it’s *really* worth the effort to try appealing to the dwindling elements of the left that might be receptive to the notion that civil liberties are worth defending.

      There are very few “liberals” left in this country.

    9. avatar Tommycat says:

      I’m a conservative, and I agree with a lot of her political leanings. BUT the gun community isn’t just far right conservatives. And to be honest, I’d rather get MORE leftists to understand the NEED for their own protection. I point out, “What do you have to defend yourself from a government that abuses power? What if Trump IS what you fear he is?”

    10. avatar L. J. Perreira says:

      Who cares what you like? Do you think being a paying NRA member makes you special? If she’s Christian and wants to express that, then let her. You don’t have to watch. If you think you can do a better, then ask the NRA to give you a job.

    11. avatar The Dude Abides says:

      They say Don’t Feed The Trolls.

      And here’s TTAG, chuggin right along throwing free food at them.

    12. avatar Joe Wright says:

      What is the problem with you socialist atheists. If you don’t like Christianity just ignore them. Or , are afraid there might be something to it. And, calling people Bible thumpers is just childish. So, grow up.

    13. avatar joe3 says:

      I disagree with you cause I like bible thumpers more than ACHMEDS.

    14. avatar concealed carrier says:

      Maybe if there was more “bible thumpers” as you so expertly call them. Then we wouldn’t have the problems we have today. If more people where closer to God we wouldn’t have to worry with all the problems America has. After all it is what we where founded on. So before you trash someone’s beliefs suck it up and live with the fact she fights for our gun rights.

  2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    The internet is anonymous (mostly), but phone calls leave a data trail that will lead the authorities right to your door.

    I think someone is in for a rude awakening.

    1. avatar Bob316 says:

      With the bad guy using two points of electronic communication to deliver the threats, the police can find him. The question will be if the law enforcement agency (or agencies) have the money and political will to trace it.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Much like IP spoofing, similar type games can be played with caller ID…

        1. avatar SelousX says:

          Caller ID? Unless the perp is calling from an increasingly uncommon pay phone or a burner handset, there is potentially an empirical evidence trail pointing directly at them. Every time a call, voice or data, is placed revenue and non-revenue records are generated. Once the call ends, these are sent from the switch downstream to a central location and are eventually archived in a searchable repository with the telecommunications provider. CALEA requests are satisfied through searching this repository.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          I’ll defer to your knowledge of modern digital switches, SelousX.

          My knowledge of telcom ends with a few years buried in old #5 crossbar switchgear…

      2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        The police tend to take it seriously when high profile people are victimized. They know it will be publicized when they catch the predator, and it makes them look good.

      3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        “The question will be if the law enforcement agency (or agencies) have the money and political will to trace it.”

        I unabashedly predict that law enforcement agencies lack the political will to trace it.

    2. avatar Mr. 308 says:

      “The internet is anonymous”

      Who told you this?

      The internet can be made difficult to trace if you really know what you are doing.

      For the 99.9999% of the rest, the internet is just like standing on the street out in front of your house.

      And this veneer of ‘anonymous’ has gotten lots of people in trouble, many of them to the point of jail.

      Treat the net like you are in public, because you are.

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        Maybe we’re off-topic here, but…
        What’s to prevent me from buying a cheap tablet at Best Buy, using the wifi at McDonald’s, creating a twit account and then posting some sophomoric threat to someone?

        Tell me how you’re going to catch me.

        1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

          Sure, that’s about the best you can do, *however* you just indicated to me an example of standing in public and doing something, which is my point.

          And you would be surprised what they can do with cameras everywhere. Were you to do something like you describe and threaten someone enough to get the right people interested I give it 97% chance they still track you down.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          If you never use that computer to access anything again other than that social media account, it will be difficult to catch you.

          Note, however, that most social media forums require an e-mail address to create an account. If you have ever accessed that e-mail address from a known location, law enforcement can trace you in short order.

          Unless you purchase a new computer with cash and never use it for anything else, somehow create a brand new e-mail account that isn’t linked to anything else and never use that e-mail account for anything else, and you only use that computer and e-mail account at a free public Wi-Fi location, you are traceable. Even then, if there are surveillance cameras in the vicinity of that free public Wi-Fi location, there is decent chance that law enforcement can get a bead on you … if they really want to.

        3. avatar SelousX says:

          Did you buy your tablet new or used? Did you pay cash or with an account of some sort? Can you ‘spoof’ the MAC address of the tablet? Are you a regular at the location from which you’re posting?
          Those are questions one has to consider before even entertaining the possibility they may actually be ‘anonymous’ on the Internet.

        4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Anonymity note:

          All computers have a unique electronic signature/identity. Your computer shares its unique electronic identity with many/most websites when you access those sites and those sites log that information. And it should be no surprise that the administrator of those sites can readily access those logs and typically keep the logs basically forever.

          If a stalker accessed a social media forum and threatened someone, that social media forum would have the electronic identity of that stalker’s computer. If asked, it is a trivial matter for website administrators to see if a known person with the same electronic identity as a stalker accessed their website. Thus, law enforcement could query the most popular websites to see if they have a matching electronic signature. If the stalker ever accessed those other websites as him/herself*, Johnny Law would know his/her identity in short order.

          * Caveat … while a website may not know the person’s name that corresponds to their computer’s electronic identity (although there is a very good chance that they do), they would most certainly know that person’s Internet address, which easily traces to their Internet provider, which easily traces to their physical address where they live.

        5. avatar Bob316 says:

          Pinpoint which McDonald’s, review surveillance cameras, investigate everyone that is using a laptop or sat in their car in the parking lot outside of the restaurant. If the guy did not toss his electronic device, monitor for other uses of the device to build up a library of video from more surveillance camera, and look for the same person being in both locations. Also, seize all computers and phones, then scan the raw data on the drives for files he/she tried to delete. Trust me, it is a lot easier than you think.

        6. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

          Or buy a burner smartphone pay as you go. That’s what terrorists do. My current “smart” phone cost 20bucks. And it’s pretty good for the money…

  3. avatar Chadwick says:

    I hope she doesn’t have to ventilate this dirtbag, but if she does…. Well bye!

    My money is on Dana. I’ll double down and say that the media would paint her as a bad person for protecting herself because-guns.

  4. avatar JK says:

    How about we practice some finger discipline and get that damn finger out of trigger guard, Dana?

    1. avatar red Sox says:

      That’s not her hand.

    2. avatar John E> says:

      that was photo-shopped by the anti-gun crowd, RF might want to note that.

      1. avatar BDub says:

        Badly photoshopped.

    3. avatar BDub says:

      I scrolled all the way through to comments just to see if somebody called out the photoshopped image for trigger-discipline.

      And here I am. Lol!

  5. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    RF: That image is a Photoshop fake. Dana would never point a gun at herself with her finger on the trigger. Please replace it with a real one.

    1. avatar Oxygenthief says:

      I just noticed that, the arm is in an off angle, and the tone of the skin on her face is different than that of the hand. I agree, please change out the image as this is a photoshopped image.

      1. avatar Bob316 says:

        I saw that too. The hand almost looks artificial. If I were the photographer of the original picture, I would probably be suing.

  6. avatar Oxygenthief says:

    I purchased and read her book and I have to say that I am a fan now. She is the strong female lead in our struggles to win over women in our fight to keep our 2A rights. She is well spoken, well written and has a good head on her shoulders. We need more like her in our country.

    I hope they catch the person making the threats before he tries anything. Who wants to make a bet that the guy is a Democrat?

  7. avatar jwm says:

    She has done the smart thing. Keep the cops in the loop and establish a trail of evidence so if she does have to go to her gun her lawyer will have an easier time of it.

    Will her troll take it to the next level? No way to know. More and more trolling is being seen as a warning sign for mental illness. The internet, like alcohol, brings out the real person. Which is downright scary in some cases.

    1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      More likely a SWATing from this sort.

  8. avatar MyMoneyIsOnDana says:

    Dana can handle her own… And regardless, she’s got much more support than the troll can even imagine. Hopefully nothing turns up, but if it does she’ll end it quickly.

  9. avatar Cliff H says:

    I pity the fool…

    1. avatar John L. says:

      I don’t. (But I appreciate the Mr. T reference.)

      Making threats like that is unacceptable, period, and anyone fit to be in society should know that. My only hope is that this jackass is over 18 and therefore won’t be charged as a juvenile when he’s caught.

  10. avatar formerwaterwalker says:

    We got your back Dana. But why oh why is your address known? And what a loser POS. I hope they catch this coward…and Dana doesn’t have blow his shite away.

    1. avatar TravisP says:

      Thats easy, all you need is a name and you can find anyone who owns property in the United States.

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        Mostly true, but in most states there are ways around it.
        In Illinois you can create a land trust that, when properly established, will make the beneficiaries of the trust anonymous. This is often used by judges, prosecutors, police officers and other high profile people.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Thats easy, all you need is a name and you can find anyone who owns property in the United States.”

        *That* is another thing that trusts are good for.

        It can force someone to really expend some effort to find out who/what controls a trust… 🙂

        EDIT – Drat. Curtis beat me to it…

      3. avatar Bob316 says:

        In many states, a licensed attorney and private investigator can request DMV information for anyone they choose. The left hires attorney’s and private investigators to dig up dirt on anyone who is popular who has a message contrary to them. It would not surprise me that this “private” information leaks to the more radical in the leftist circles.

  11. avatar Just A Reader says:

    Owning a firearm and training in both armed and unarmed self defense techniques does not render one bulletproof nor immune from harm.

    While I generally find much to criticize re: Ms. Loesch’s strident point of view, I sincerely hope that she and her family will remain safe from whatever misguided miscreant is behind the threats, however real they may be.

  12. avatar Bob316 says:

    The left spread propaganda about how We The People – the law abiding citizen – is “dangerous” because we practice our 2nd amendment rights, but yet the left is the first to use violence to attack us. Do they not realize that the 2nd amendment exists to protect us from them?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “Do they not realize that the 2nd amendment exists to protect us from them?”

      Of course they do. That’s exactly why they are opposed to 2A.

  13. avatar Joe R. says:

    “At this time, the suspect is still at large,”

    NO
    ONE
    CAN
    PROTECT
    YOU
    @
    THE
    INDIVIDUAL
    LEVEL (maybe not even you, but definitely not the “come when you call ’em” EVEN WHEN THEY ARE AT YOUR HOUSE).

  14. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Firearms freedom is a big tent. We needn’t demand some rigorous, principled and conforming epistemology from everyone who walks in (though I’m personally always skeptical of liberal gun owners). Neither should we expect that they impose self-censorship and conceal their related beliefs as a condition of access to the 2A community.

    If this lady has conservative or religious views which inform or influence her RKBA stance, then what’s the problem? Let a hundred flowers bloom.

  15. avatar Taurus609 says:

    I lost respect for Ms Loesch when she was on Megan Kelly’s program a week or so ago and was arguing with some left wing gun hater and she stated (and I’m paraphrasing) if I need a firearm for home defense I’m going to grab my Glock or shotgun, not my AR!

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Was that her personal preference or a broad statement not to own an AR? I believe she even posed with an AR on the cover of her latest book.

      Personally I prefer an AR over handgun or shotgun for personal defense, but each person’s preferences is different.

    2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      The ideal home defense weapon?
      Great question. We could debate it all day. Lots of pros and cons for each platform. I would love to have an AR-15 chambered in 300BLK with a 10 inch barrel and a suppressor, loaded with subsonic ammo. But since suppressors are illegal in my state…

      Whatever Ms. Loesch’s reasoning, I think it’s silly to lose respect for her because of her choice of tools.

  16. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I agree that Loesch’s role as an NRA spokesman should keep the focus on guns. However in it’s zeal to defend the 2A, the NRA sometimes gets blinders on when it comes to 4A and 5A issues that affect gun rights. Lately though, “No fly/No buy” has forced them to recognize these abuses.

    The left likes to culture bundle gun rights supporters, the NRA doesn’t need to be doing that for them.

    1. avatar achmed says:

      You hit the nail on the head

    2. avatar BDub says:

      Exactly.

      The gun-rights community will always be strongest as a single issue one, and its organizations and advocate should reflect that.

  17. avatar Owen says:

    That picture of her pointing the gun at her own head with her finger in the trigger made me think “don’t do it!”.

  18. avatar Joe R. says:

    Decker _

    “Amendment I. = how the founders said Religion ‘shall not be infringed’.

    You’re trying to say, they meant, only for hunting and sporting purposes, and no automatic assertions of, or adoration of
    GOD. Or it’s not the right of civilians to possess [or be imbued by] GOD. Or that the people-citizens of the U.S. can only freely exercise their right to their GOD, or protect themselves with their GOD in their own homes. You’re saying that it’s not the right of civilians to openly (or concealed) carry their GOD, or that individuals cannot transfer their ownership in their belief in their GOD to another party without a background check. . .

  19. avatar Sad88 says:

    Joe yells alot. He should eat a whole box of snickers:)

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Sad ate & ate

      As posted before
      It’s not yelling, while you’re reading I’m telling your brain THIS IS IMPORTANT, and (like it or not) your brain will agree with me.
      If
      I
      Stack
      It
      Or,
      S_P_R_E_A_D it out, your brain will be even more accepting of what I’m saying. If I could type in a blue colored text, you’d be even more agreeable to it. If in pink, you’d be less-so.

      Now, you can go bavk and search all of the things I’ve peogrammed into your brain, or you could just understand that, even if I will not support anything you say, I am for you and yours making it along with me and mine if we have a shared understanding of what I’m trying to say, and one of those is:
      I’M NOT YELLING.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        You’re rapidly programming my brain to simply skip anything you write.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          even if you see my name as the posting person, and

          s k I m

          or

          s
          k
          I
          m

          over my post, your brain has uploaded the key points.

          Thank you. Again, it is not with any greater malice than what’s responded to, and mostly a lot less. If I said, THAT’S POISON IVY AND WILL LIKELY IRRITATE YOU FIERCE, hopefully you’d allow both halves of your brain to accept the warning. If not, you’ll think it’s your idea.

      2. avatar CarlosT says:

        All caps has been the convention for yelling online for two decades or more. You can lie to yourself and believe that’s not how it’ll be read, but if you type in all caps online, you’re yelling. As for the other weirdness in text formatting, it doesn’t make your points stick, it just makes you look like a loon.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Right, all caps is yelling.

          Any Marketing majors out there care to correct me, or. . . him?

          All caps is yelling.That’s why they do it on warning labels, on greeting cards, on certain types/sections of technical righting (product assembly directions, safety instructions). All yelling. Not to subconsciously trigger anything. Nope.

          “you didn’t see anything. . .” – The Penguins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qXXWHfJha4

          Again, I AM OPEN ABOUT IT AND I DO NOT HAVE ANY NEFARIOUS INTENTIONS, NOR DO NOT WISH YOU ANY UNDUE HARM.

  20. avatar jjimmyjonga says:

    jesus, moses, allah are the best. if you like guns, you better be one of these or else we will crush y’all, cause thats the ‘merican way. bible-torah-koran thumpin folks pitty you fools…and lets not even get started on those hindu losers scum.

  21. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    It’s kinda funny in an annoying sort of way how a Clinton video ad hammering Trump popped up in the middle of the article above just under Dana’s image.

  22. avatar docduracoat says:

    The United States may be majority Christian.
    I am Jewish and I am in favor of gun rights
    Jews have been here since the New Amsterdam colony
    Lots of the original 13 colonies were religious dictatorships
    The founders new all about government repression of minority religions and they rejected it.
    You will note that freedom of religion is the first amendment
    Bearing arms is second

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      The Freedoms of the 1st Amendment are what’s important. However, like all freedoms recited (or not) in the Bill of Rights, they are freedoms [protections] FROM government. Thereby ONLY protected by an armed Society. Sic, the 2nd Amendment, is how you get it done.

  23. avatar strych9 says:

    Why did TTAG choose to use a screen shot of her with her finger on the trigger which is from a Left wing “parody” video where she commits suicide?

  24. avatar W says:

    Lesson: be empowered.

  25. avatar FU says:

    The greatest retard country in the world, founded by European scum, created by African slaves.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Oh look, he thinks he’s people.

  26. avatar adverse4 says:

    I’ll be happy to throw myself on her to protect her.

  27. avatar Duncan says:

    I hope they catch the Internet Coward.

    By deluting the NRAs message with religion overtones, it panders to the fredom hating, anti-civil rights left-wing nuts. BTW, stop calling them liberals. Liberal means freely excepting others views, clearly not the case. Keep the focus on 2A.

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