NRA Closed fist of truth

The left’s descent into full-on derangement continues unabated with each passing day the Trump administration remains un-impeached. So when Dana Loesch so effectively pointed out the behavior of violent bullies on the left, vowing to fight them with “the clenched fist of truth,” the NRA and Loesch became public enemy #1 for America’s social justice warriors.

In Loesch’s hard-hitting video, produced by the NRA, the no holds barred commentator kicked them where it counts.

…To smash windows. Burn cars. Shut down interstates and airports. Bully and terrorize the law-abiding.

Until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness. And when that happens, they’ll use it as an excuse for their outrage.

The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth.

I’m the National Rifle Association of America. And I’m Freedom’s Safest Place.

If the video had lacked effectiveness, the left would have ignore it. Judging by the increasingly shrill caterwauling it evoked, Loesch’s video hit home. That and fact that the left was looking for a distraction from the Bernie bro who had tried to assassinate a passel of Republican Congressmen on a ball field last month.

At first they pleaded with the NRA to take the video down. That didn’t work. Taking a page from Donald Trump (not to mention advice from President Obama himself), the NRA hit Loesch’s critics back twice as hard. Grant Stinchfield did a nice job, doubling down with the “clenched fist of truth”.

Stinchfield closed with this:

So to every member of the lying media and the violent left demanding an apology, let me be very clear—it’ll never happen. We don’t apologize for warning America about chaos creators who want to impose their will upon us, through their violence and lies. And we stand firm with the clenched first of truth while they wilt with an open mouth of lies.

No NRA members has attempted to assassinate a large group of Congressmen. We don’t cover our faces with masks when we protest, set fires or assault counter protestors. We don’t bloody our political opponents unless first attacked. In fact, it’s not uncommon to see police with their backs to us. Why? Because the cops know who has their backs.

Meanwhile, the over-the-top rhetorical war against the nation’s oldest and most powerful gun rights organization continues to heat up.

A professional social justice warrior/Black Lives Matter activist described Loeschs advertisment as an “open call to violence to protect white supremacy.” Listening comprehension apparently isn’t a strong point of the media-made “celebrity.” He also claimed in a tweet that if he made that video he would be arrested. He clearly doesn’t understand the First Amendment any better than he does the Second.

Oleaginous Senator Chris Murphy tweeted that the NRA “is telling people to shoot us.” No, Senator Murphy, the only people trying to carry out political assassinations are radical socialist Democrats.

Monday, Howard Dean besmirched Trump supporters as people “with guns that want to shoot up the place.”  And because passing up a chance to throw in the race card would be a missed opportunity, he described the NRA as a “white supremacist organization” on MSNBC Live with Katy Tur.


Hollywood’s brain trust also piled on. An also-ran, B-list-aspiring “celeb” Michael Ian Black attacked the NRA as a terrorist organization.

When comedians like Black spout this stuff, most of America reacts with “Who is the hell Michael Ian Black and why should I care what another Hollywood moonbat says?” As they should. Why would anyone care what a two-bit actor, comedian and author of a hateful children’s book attacking President Trump thinks?

The People Of The Gun should continue to fight the lies and violence of the anti-gun left with the clenched fist of the truth.

Recommended For You

122 Responses to The NRA: The Left’s Latest Bogeyman?

  1. I generaly find that the Glock of Truth works far better than the Clenched Fist of Truth when dealing with violent leftists. The way I see it, ANTIFA has given me reasonable fear of death or injury when dealing with any leftist scumbag. Thanks ANTIFA.

    • Does the KKK with an actual history of murderous violence give any African American the reasonable basis to defend with violence against any conservative southerner?

      • 1. The KKK were not “conservatives” they were leftist Dixiecrats. Own your history lefty. The DNC is the party of slavery, secession, Jim Crow, and the KKK.
        2. ANTIFA has tried to kill far more people far more recently than the KKK.

        • Did you really just say that the Dixiecrats were leftists?

          Speaking of deluded…

        • Swarf I find little difference between a modern BLM Afrocentric racist and a 1960s KKK member. Leftism is all about “special rights for special people”. Just because they didn’t openly support the Communist Party in the 60s didn’t mean they weren’t their footsoldiers.

        • KKK as leftist eh? That’s a bunch BS. Most of these “Dixiecrats” are now a firm part of the GOP base. Hence their overwhelming support for Trump.

        • Hellofromillinois Oh you’re addorable. Next you’re going to tell me that the 40% tax hike the DNC just shoved down our throats is somehow Trump’s fault. Never underestimate the ability of a liberal nutjob to deny reality.

        • So in your mind anyone who is for special rights for special people is a leftist? Wouldn’t that place the vast majority of evangelical conservatives or others with religious oriented political goals in the “leftist” camp? But that would make them directly at odds with most of the traditional left which is more secularly minded.

          That isn’t how the left-right scale works. It sure must be convenient for you to make up your own version to put anyone you disagree with on the opposite side of the aisle.

          The point is there are assholes on both side of the aisle along with rational
          people.

          The right is by definition is for tradition and social stratification while the left is for social change in favor of equality. Those definitions have been passed down since the terms came in use during the French Revolution. Hard to argue that racial hierarchy and white supremacy was not and has not long been a part of the American tradition and thus the Klan was fighting to protect tradition and thus clearly more on the right.

        • “Hard to argue”? Only if your education ended when you left the socialist indoctrination camps of our public school system.

          We can talk about the fictional ideology of the “left” all we want, but we have about a century of results for their delusions that ended in over 100 million dead bodies. Pretending that there was a drastic difference between the ideologies of the KKK and the modern CCP is cretinous. Both are tyrannical authoritarians, they just differ in who they would prefer to come out on top.

        • Why on earth would I say that the tax hike in Illinois is Trump’s fault or that Republicans and Nazis are the same thing? Do neo-Nazis and other extremist groups on the Right support the GOP generally? Sure, but that doesn’t mean they are one in the same and is irrelevant to our discussion of whether or not the KKK is a “leftist” organization. I’ve noticed this is a very common trend with serge and others here: attempt to deflect the conversation by randomly accusing me or others of something completely unrelated to what was said simply because we question the “holiness” of someone on the right. Generally speaking people quick to act macho or defend their positions by attack others have some pretty deep insecurities.

          Anyways, my actual point is simply that painting anyone you disagree with as on the opposite side of the political spectrum is illogical given many of these people are clearly against “leftist” values like social equality, egalitarianism, secularism, tolerance, democratic socialism, etc. This is especially the case when pointing to a group like the Klan which has a long history of trying to protect white Christian dominance in this country, the exact opposite of secular or egalitarian view point.

        • Oh stop, you’re turning into a giant blob of addorable ignorance. You think that modern leftists are egalitarian. What part of the intersectional progressive victimhood stack screams “egalitarian” to you? The left as you described it has never existed. I would sooner believe in unicorns.

        • The Klan are more properly described as New Deal Democrats. That is not leftwing by today’s standards but it was in their halcyon days, Do not confuse racism with conservatism. Some conservatives are indeed racists but there are far fewer conservative racists the leftists. The Progressive movement was racists as all get out.

        • Serge, you seem to think that calling people adorable is the same as winning. It’s not. And it just makes you and your position look weak.

        • The lefty’s hero Margaret Sanger spoke at a KKK rally, she wanted to rid the world of blacks, Not her word because they were weeds that needed pulled.

          The Nazi’s were leftists, socialism and communism has killed more people than all wars all abortions etc.

          upwards of 50 to 60 million people at the hands of government control freaks. Stalin, “One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.”

          Those little Bernie-ites and commie freaks think they will be on the “in” they are the useless idiots, The man who controled the brown shirts, Ernst Röhm who put Hitler in power was then jailed and killed by the same Hitler.

          Those who stood behind Stalin, were systematically killed by the same Stalin.

          You are only useful to get them there then you are removed. Libtards love their heroes, they even die for them, though not by choice.

        • Pwrserge
          Why don’t you look up one of your Hero Richard Nixon and the republican parties most successful operations, Southern strategy.
          They moved all those white supposedly leftist democrats and KKK members over to the republican side by appealing to racism against African Americans.
          I’m not a leftist but I do hate to see people create fake history.

        • “The DNC is the party of slavery, secession, Jim Crow, and the KKK.”

          Don’t forget internment camps (both times) and crop burning during famine.

        • I must correct you, sir; The KKK, and the Southern Democratic regimes, were REACTIONARY, at the extreme ‘right’ of the political spectrum–certainly not ‘leftist.’ The fondest desire of both of those groups, if in fact there ever was a difference of any substance between them, was a return to the halcyon days of the Antebellum South–a return to slavery, or at minimum clear white societal superiority in all things, a reinstatement of the plantation system and the moneyed aristocracy. Neither group had any desire for government by the ‘common’ people in general, ownership of the means of production by the citizenry at large, or a ‘withering away’ of class distinctions and inequalities–quite the opposite!

        • The “Big Switch” is a fallacy. There were 12 Democrats and only 1 Dixiecrat to leave the Democrat party for the Republican side. The single Dixiecrat was Strom Thurman.

      • The NRA, last I checked, also defended the rights of all American citizens- of every color and creed, their second amendment rights.

      • Geez, the KKK…talk about a f*ckin’ boogeyman. Nationally, across all the different iterations of the “Klan” there’s what…several thousand members? And what do they do nowadays? Meet deep in the woods on private property and wear costumes? How many people nationwide do you think adhere to the Resistance/Antifa movement? How many of them have been involved in shutting down other citizens’ rights to free speech and free assembly? How many of them have committed irrational, violent/criminal acts? Bet it’s more than total national Klan membership.

        By that same logic, given the history of recent murderous violence against black people by other black people, does that not give black people the reasonable basis to defend with violence against all other black people?

        And defend what exactly? Defend themselves from violent aggression? You bet! Violently defend themselves from non-aggressive, politically different folks. No.

        • ‘Nationally, across all the different iterations of the “Klan” there’s what…several thousand members?’

          Actually, more like hundreds, if not dozens. The Klan really doesn’t amount to much, except as a symbolic reference point for The Left. People in the south moved on a long time ago. The Klan is about as significant as The Women’s Christian Temperance Union or The International Worker’s Of The World (Wobblies). They all still out there . . . somewhere. There is, however, a close affinity between the racialism of The Black Lives Matter Movement and the racialism of the KKK. They are effectively mirror images of each other. Think about that for a minute.

      • Seconding what pwrserge noted: the KKK were a Democratic party affiliated organization, not Republican. Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, incidentally.

        And as for the second point, if the KKK were actually still a relevant presence and had the numbers to go around disrupting public events and attacking people, then yes, I’d give blacks a pass if they felt in fear of their lives and used force against them, just the same as I’d give anyone who plugs a masked antifa thug trying to bean them with a U lock or swarming some lone normie 20 on one.

        One on one, these scum are cowards. Their favorite tactic is to grab someone and drag them into a group where 10-20 of them can wail on the lone victim from all directions.

        • “Their favorite tactic is to grab someone and drag them into a group where 10-20 of them can wail on the lone victim from all directions.”

          We need to adjust our tactics if we elect to counter-protest them. Like carry bear spray for self-defense and have some of ours there to document the violence with video…

        • Behaving as though the southern Democrats who made up the KKK are the same people who make up the party to day and that the Nazi Party was Socialist in anything but name and not a collection of right-wing fascists is intellectually dishonest at best and curves down from there through “willfully ignorant” to “fucking stupid.”

        • Sorry Swarf, but the National Socialist German Workers Party was very socialist. Look at their policies between 1933 and 1939. Hell, if you take one of Hitler’s speeches and replace “Jew” with “1%” you swear you were listening to Bernie.

      • The KKK is a liberal (progressive) organization. They love using government to tell people how to live. Historically they were the arm of big government for the democrats. That is a fact. They confiscated the property (guns) of law abiding black people.

        • Big government is not exclusive to left nor is smaller government exclusive to the right. The two major parties have changed dramatically over time. The old Southern Democrats were on the right side of the political spectrum and for small government, local control, and traditional social structure (aka white supremacy and slavery). They have largely switched over to being modern day Republicans after the New Deal when the Democrats moved firmly to the left as a party. This is simple basic American political history. The Republican Party under Lincoln is far different than today in part because many of the issues have changed dramatically.

        • Thank you Her Goebels. I believe we’re all familiar with that particular DNC perpetuated myth. Back in reality, however, we know that the DNC has always been about authoritarianism. Local or national authoritarianism makes little difference.

        • Amazing how calling someone a Nazi around here doesn’t lead to “flame deleted” but many far less insulting comments do.

        • Illinois, eh, I think it’s an imperfect system. There’s been quite a few times I’ve picked some drunken fights here where I commonly threw out the words “faggot” and “retard” and they somehow didn’t get deleted.

        • Hank, it appears to be a deliberate thing. I had a comment addressing how I thought the idea of “one issue” voting was silly deleted as a “Flame” a while back despite that clearly was far less of an attack than much of what appears in Serge and others’ comments very regularly. I regularly get painted around here as some left wing extremist dunce without just provocation (and without merit since I am none of those things) for daring to debate the merits of some of the flawed arguments made around here.

          Oh well. It doesn’t keep me up at night. I just happen to think the clearly one-sided handling of things and continual attacks on moderate or liberal gun owners does a disservice to this site which I continue to visit largely for their excellent reviews of gear and guns and to the gun community at large which needs gun owners of all political persuasions to help defend our 2nd Amendment Rights. This is especially true for social libertarians who don’t like the Republican party’s stance on women, LGBTQ, religion, etc. but are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment. Last polls I read indicated 50% of independents are not for stricter gun laws. That is a number that could be improved and at the very least needs to be maintained. They likely aren’t going to care about defending the 2nd Amendment as much if they are continually attacked by its other supporters. I certainly can’t say I’d want myself associated with some of those here that cannot accept political differences or handle debating without turning to unfounded personal attacks.

        • Really need to get Nelson called out on voting for him as senate majority leader next year.

      • You do realize that there have been progressives in both the Democratic and Republican Party. Good ol’ Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican and one of the most prominent progressive figures of the early 20th century. As I have repeated here many times, the parties have changed a lot over time. The Civil Rights movement in particular in the middle of the last century had serious implications for both parties. There were plenty of conservative Democrats back then.

        • You mean back when progressivism meant something completely different from mid 20th century onward cultural Marxism? Please stop, you’re embarrassing yourself.

        • Combining a few threads here:

          Progressivism has always championed egalitarianism, just in a twisted form that requires mass murder, a fact Progressives openly admitted back in the 1920’s and 1930’s.

          When we speak of “egalitarianism” we can generally define that word the way the dictionary does: relating to equality of opportunity. That’s not the Progressive definition. They want equality of outcome and see that as utopia.

          The problems with equality of outcome are too numerous to list here (and also mostly known by everyone) but at their root require a large and powerful government to enforce. Enforcement of such equality demands a society where individual rights do not exist and where “group rights” reign supreme. Those who stand in the way of “progress” towards this utopia must be eliminated.

          Progressivism has always been flat out evil in this regard. They’re the ones who called for “a humane gas” for the purposes of “liquidating the undesirables in society” which they defined as “those who produce less than they consume” both in terms of physical production and intellectual production (provided that it conformed to their political ideology of course).

          Ultimately “modern Progressives” are little different from their ideological ancestors, they’re just better at messaging. A core belief that has run from the Fabian Socialists all the way through to modern Progressives is that violence against those who stand in their way is not just acceptable but necessary and laudable because it eliminates the “undesirables” in one way or another.

          That guy in a mask swinging a brick or a bike lock isn’t doing anything wrong or much different than what George Bernard Shaw spoke of in the early 1930’s. Mr. Bike Lock just isn’t doing it on the scale Mr.
          Shaw envisioned.

          Regardless of individual party affiliation, in my book anyone who has adopted the mantel of Progressivism is either not a nice person or unbelievable stupid on some level. Either way, they’re not to be trusted because they believe in amassing power in government at the expense of the people. Some of them may do this not realizing the end goal(s) of Progressivism but they’re helping move us along that road anyway and so at best are “useful idiots” and just as dangerous as those that know the end goals.

        • If you research the history of the civil Rights Act, you will find that the Republicans were pushing this program for a decade before Kennedy took up the banner. And when Johnson finally signed the bill, after some serious arm twisting of members of the Democratic Party elite, he famously said that his signature “would cost us the South for a generation.” The Democratic Party, all the way back to the civil War, was anti-abolutionist, and ran General McClellan against Lincoln on a platform of stopping the war and and allowing slavery to continue to exist in the south. These same Democrats were the party that passed the segregationist Jim Crow laws and most of the original carry bans, bans that were directed at blacks. In this same vein, despite having been threatened multiple times with death, Dr. King was denied a concealed carry permit in Georgia.

          Now it is true that after Johnson, the Democratic Party, having lost its most conservatives members, took a hard turn to the left into Marxist doctrine, a doctrine that is, in its own way, equally intolerant, and equally invested in disarming the Proletariat.

        • Here we go again with the thoughtless blanket statements and backhanded insults. The basic meaning of progressivism hasn’t changed at all. It is about social progress as it always has been, often through use of scientific advancements and improvements in understanding of human behavior. Science in the early period had a long way to come in the understanding of human psychology/neurobiology hence the social-Darwinism and other racist ideas.

        • Ok. How many times do I have to explain that modern progressivism has nothing to do with egalitarianism or science before it manages to trickle its way through your skull? I have about a dozen posted examples below. My favorite go to? The “gender pay gap”.

      • “Antifa” is actually quite fascist in its behavior. But fascism is a left wing form of government.

      • Seems that the common tread between historic kkk democrats and modern democrats is keeping blacks disarmed and in voting slavery to democrats. The chains today are just made of something different than iron.

  2. Michael Ian Black, he must be a comedian, because I laughed when I read the sh!t that he wrote. I didn’t know Howard Dean was still alive.

  3. As this divide goes on, it is really hard to see how this country can ever come together. I know a lot of people in the middle just live thier lives and don’t pay attention to a lot of things in the news, but there is probably 25% of the country on each side of the fence that will never agree on anything. I look at Dana Loesch’s speech and say “Right On, about time some one called out these fascists!”. Some else sees the speech and says, “Why is this fascist allowed to speak?” How do you merge those view points so diametrically different? I guess you don’t. But what will this lead to?

    • I fail to see the benefit of “reconciling” with commie scum. Quite frankly, there is no “reasonable middle ground” to be found with the modern left. They simply can’t be trusted to abide by any agreement they make. We’re about a decade away from a war to the knife and I think the country will be better off once it’s over.

    • There isnt going to be any “comming together”. We are long past that now. What we need is a two state solution, preferrably with as little bloodshed as possible.

      • The fourth option, and the most logical, is that the large Leftist stronghold cities are invited to become their own City-States. Any city over 750K. The state they are in votes (with residents of the city NOT being permitted to have a say, after all, if they have been a good fit, it won’t matter).

        If the city in question is voted to form its own state, it gets 2 (and only two, regardless of current or eventual population) electoral votes and must support itself completely financially.

        After 10 years, it may petition the original state for re-admission, and if the voters approve it, be given a ten year probationary period. If it fails this period, it is permanently divorced from the state.

        This is the only fair, logical solution. Looking at a county by county voting map of the previous election, the overwhelming majority of the US voted Blue (the colors need to be inverted, since Red is the color of Communism). The vanishingly small amount of actual land that this bloc currently occupies should be mirrored in the separation.

        This option allows for the US to continue as an entity, and prevents the left from meddling in the affairs of larger land/population areas (disproportionate influence), while still giving them autonomy to decide their own path forward.

        • ++ ^This
          Colors were not “set” until the 2000 election and originally (late 19th century) were the exact opposite.
          Just as pink used to be a “boy” color.

    • Historically speaking it can only end in 1 of 3 ways:

      The right pacifies the left
      The left pacifies the right
      The country splits into 2 or more separate nations.

    • Most of the population hovers around the center. Some are a little left of center, some a little right of it. Most of these people have better things to do than feed their outrage addiction all day on the internet, so they largely go unnoticed in the media.

      It remains to be seen if the shrieking minorities on the the extremes of the political spectrum can succeed in tearing the nation apart. If so, that would be stupid to a surreal degree. As of now, our nation, even during a downturn, is an economic and military powerhouse. Our geography alone makes us close to impossible to invade and hold. It would be ridiculous if we fragmented because a few groups of panicky, weak willed, herd animals can’t have 100 percent their way all the time.

    • Who said the radical left wants to reconcile? They are using the same tactics the Nazis (I know I went there already it’s just the best historical example) used against the communist party and basically any party who threatened their campaign.

      Basically, you intentionally put yourself into situations were you’re outnumbered, throw the first punch, and then use the media to cry foul that the ______ party is huge, violent oppressors that are trying to destroy our country. And always make sure to use the media to suppress the knowledge of your own acts of violence.

    • It isn’t so much that libs and conservatives don’t agree on anything. It’s that they don’t agree on one big thing: government control over people’s lives. People have a perfectly legitimate interest in curtailing givernment’s seemingly illimitable dominion over every facet of our lives.

      That principle crops up in a great many places and in virtually every major issue, which is why it gets so much attention. Still, on more objective matters, the two sides tend to disagree less than it appears. Take the Supreme Court this pas session, for example. After Scalia’s death, itbwas split evenly along its 4-4 ideological divide.

      Yet, not a single case was decided with a 4-4 vote. In fact, of the 54 recorded votes this past term, the majority (30) were actually decided unanimously, believe it or not. The closest to 4-4 that the Court came, 5-3, occurred in only six votes.

      • But don’t both sides want to exert government control over people’s lives albeit in different ways? Last I checked, the American right was staunchly opposed to legal weed or same sex marriage. There are some conservative states that still ban the sale of sex toys and a South Carolina lawmaker recently introduced that would require all computers sold in the state to come with a mandatory porn blocker in place. The right is not really striking me as the party of governmental non-interference in people’s lives.

        And the left has it’s own ways of using government to suck all the fun and freedom out of life. From trying to severely limit guns to trying to ban trans fats and HFCS in foods to creating quagmires of taxes and regulations that impede business at every turn.

        When I look at the world that the left wants and the world that the right wants, I see two depressing, joyless, oppressive dystopias. I see a glass of bleach and a glass of ammonia.

        • That’s hardly rational. The difference between the left and the right is the nature of the “essential liberties” they protect. The left is focused on libertine concepts not liberty. Liberty has nothing to do with who you can have sex with or what poison you can shoot into your body. It has everything to do with you being certain of your ability to take your next breath and not have your door kicked in in the middle of the night by armed thugs because someone with power decides that you are a “threat” to their version of the world. Take “marriage” for example. I think the perfect compromise would be to get the government out of the “marriage” business altogether. Remove the concept from our legal code and replace it with legally enforced binding agreements. Eliminate 90% of the tax code to get rid of special privileges for special people. But then the left would scream bloody murder.

        • Ok Serge, I’m with you on this one. Not saying I’m against or with you on anything else. The marriage issue is easy. Eliminate the state from the equation. Nullify all state laws that have to do with marriage and have a standard contract that both parties sign when they get “married”. The couple can choose to enter this contract or not, can choose to take vows in a church or not. The argument of state sponsored rights or priveleges goes away. I offered this idea to my wife two years ago when the issue was front and center. She, as a progressive, discounted it as a Republican ploy to take away the rights of the LGBTWKDUEJDJEI crowd. Not a registered republican BTW.

        • The basic bug in your argument is that, in order to negate the state’s authority to limit official recognition of marriage to heterosexuals, SCOTUS effectively negated the states’ sanctioning authority altogether. How is monogamy a more compelling states’ interest than heterosexuality? Or affinal relations more than consanguinal? Or adult relationships more than child marriage? Or perhaps that’s a feature of your argument, not a bug.

      • One of the reasons there were no 4-4 votes in the Supreme Court was because Chief Justice Roberts kept some cases off the calendar, either by outright denying cert or by delaying the case to the next session. Don’t assume that any collegiality exists on the court.

    • “How do you merge those view points so diametrically different? I guess you don’t. But what will this lead to?”

      There are irreconcilable differences with them. It leads to a national divorce.

      It’s really best that happens before the inevitable spousal abuse begins…

  4. Why the added redundancy? “No, Senator Murphy, the only people trying to carry out political assassinations are radical socialist Democrats.”. No need for the inclusion of “radical socialist”. All democrats can safely be added into the Liberal Terrorist™ category, as they ALL pose an existential threat to our Constitutional Republic. “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, so my child may know peace”. We are at Crisis again.

  5. If you remember 2-3 years ago there was a guest post here on the Truth about Guns blog by the Second Amendment Foundation pleading for help in developing a new strategy for fighting gun control. Seems like our 2nd Amendment supporting organizations found some good help, doesn’t it??

  6. This is called, I believe, striking the iron while it is hot. The good thing is that the whole “AAARH! NRA ZOMBIES AND THEIR AR15S!!!” bandwagon sank so remarkably low that they might very well lose traction among neutrals.

  7. Latest bogeyman? Surely you jest. Barry Hussain Odumbo targeted us(yeah I’m a member) years ago. And I understand why. In no small way we(as well as Christian’s like me) helped elect Donald Trump. No apologizing,no backpedaling and NO surrendering…

  8. Its plain to see that the truth hurts.
    When its right there on tape for all to see. How in heck can anyone say otherwise.
    We didn’t set fire to anything. We didn’t loose our cool because Hitlary lost.
    They still cant get over it or themselves. What a bad joke they are. All these people cant possibly believe what they are saying about us.
    What a bunch of deluded losers and idiots.

  9. Thats funny by his definition the Democrat party are terrorists. I really wish conservatives would start pointing this shit out.

  10. We are still a country of individuals and most of us have opinions that differ to our neighbors, families, parents and children. Many will go only so far with the president they elected or the one they voted for. No political party can ever speak for me, but maybe if they are 80% on the issues I will live with it.

  11. Protecting western civilization means preserving its whiteness, there are no two ways about it.

    So not white supremacy, just white majority.

  12. I’ve really enjoyed all the backlash this video created. Nothing in there about white supremacy, nothing in there about committing violence against peaceful individuals. Simply a statement that when chaotic mobs bent on destruction arise, they should be dealt with accordingly. Who in their right mind would have an issue with that? But I guess I forget who I am dealing with here. Attacking her video is an endorsement of the crimes that the video speaks out against.

  13. Did the OFWGs from the NRA block the bill in IL that would allow judges to hold violent felons without bail? No, that was the tolerant Dems who are no longer the defenders of civil rights for the weak and poor. They have become ideological advocates for the worst people in society (e.g., illegal aliens, criminals, terrorists, sexual predators, etc.)

  14. Stoney Man,
    I reject your comment entirely
    Black, Asian, Hispanic and all others are welcome here
    The people of the gun do NOT care about the color of your skin
    We all share an ideology of self reliance, self defense and civility
    That is the dominant culture here in America, but it has nothing to do with white people
    I am also angry that the police seem to do nothing when masked thugs attack non violent people trying to attend speeches on college campuses

    • Hate to break this to you, but the values you just espoused are the end product of centuries of European development. Funny how no country anywhere else in the world seems to have spontaneously developed those values. Face it kid, evolution isn’t fair. Some people simply are better than others. When your population has an average IQ in the 80s…

        • I despise racism on an individual basis because genetics is not determinism. However, failing to acknowledge documented scientific trends is pants on head retarded.

          Can there be a genius (IQ over 160 or 4 SD over global average) in a group with an average IQ of 80? Yes, but the odds are slim. Why? Because you’re talking about 5.3 SD from median or a probability of 0.00000004821 or about 1 per 20 million people whereas in a population with an average IQ of 100 such a “genius” is 0.000031671 or about 1 per 35 thousand people.

        • I’ve never heard of it until you brought it up. Had to go do some quick googling. I never read The Turner Diaries either. It’s not hard to make a cognizant argument if you can do basic math and have a bit of demographic data. As I mentioned, I despise racism on an individual level. However, pretending that physiological differences between ethnic groups don’t exist and shouldn’t impact public policy is retarded.

      • There are white people, black people, brown people, and yellow people with IQ in the 80’s. Geniuses, morons, doctors, lawyers and indian chiefs (shit, I forgot red people, didn’t I?) of every color, every religion, every nationality. Each INDIVIDUAL, OTOH, should be judged on his own qualities, his own accomplishments or crimes, and his skin color has absolutely nothing to do with that. Jeffrey Dahmer was white, no? And can you conceive a more heinous, disgusting crime? Should we blame all whites for it? Judging a man by the color of his skin is so stupid it is difficult to even imagine.

        • I don’t think you understand the point I’m trying to make. There is a difference between individual prejudice and social policy.

          Let me explain. Take the general statement…
          “There are not enough X in Y field because the percentage of X in Y field doesn’t match the percentage of X in the population.”
          For example…
          “There are not enough [white men] in the [NBA] …”
          Now does this mean that white men are individually discriminated against in NBA tryouts? Doubtful.
          Let’s take a look at another statement…
          “There are not enough [women] in [STEM fields]…”
          Now this may seem like discrimination until you realize that working in a STEM field generally requires a 3rd SD IQ and female IQs are far less variable than male. It does not mean that women are dumber than men, but it does mean that there are more very smart 140+ IQ men than 140+ IQ women. (Just as there are more 80- IQ men than women.)

          Now apply that same standard to different population groups with different IQ medians and distributions. There’s a reason why I used 80 as my example above.

          I agree that individuals should be treated on their merits. But let’s not pretend that a 3rd SD student from the inner city (median IQ ~85-90) is the same as a 3rd SD student from suburbia (median IQ ~95-105)

      • By your logic, jews and south koreans should be ruling the world due to their average IQ being higher than that of the average “white” person.

        • The standard deviation is as important as the median. If the SD of IQ in a population is 10 rather than the general 15 it makes the math rather different. Not all human populations have the same SD in their IQ ranges. Europeans have a wide variation (closer to 20 than the world wide 15 average) and when you’re talking about IQs over 140, that makes a huge statistical difference.

    • Just because you reject my statement doesn’t make it any less true. For any nation to remain sufficiently recognizable as Western, it must remain 85% white and of course Christian.

      Which by the way was this nations default position prior to the 1965 passage of the Immigration act.

      As for “people of the gun” being self sufficient and all that, those are distinctly American traits. There are plenty of fake Americans who would identify as “people of the gun” and haven’t worked a day in their life.

      • WTF makes you think so? Those unsupported assumptions sound seriously stupid to me, I’m supposed to take your word for it? Who do you think you are, the messiah?

    • I suppose interpretation and context are everything. I didn’t see anything in his comment that led me to believe the BOR did not apply to all citizens. I simply inferred that Western civilization has traditionally been the realm of white, European civilization. Ultimately when people speak of preserving Western civilization, that means preserving white culture. That doesn’t mean other civilizations and races are less valid, admirable or advanced. This is what I was talking about in my comment above, saying anything like that invariably gets you branded as a supremacist.

      • I find it ironic that the left berates the right for “denying science” but then shoves their fingers in their ears and screams “racist” when you talk about median IQ distributions of different population groups. The like to mock conservatives for doubting evolution and then claim that ethnic groups that spent dozens of generations in drastically different selection environments will nave no physiological differences.

        • I’m not very well educated on the subject of IQ across different racial groups so it is hard for me to comment. However, taking what you are saying at face value, you are citing science that does not mesh with progressive ideology. In fact, what you are talking about would wholly undermine much of the progressive agenda.

          What I do have some idea on is history. Nearly every great scientific breakthrough over the last few centuries has come from “the West”. Much of what we view as “high culture” comes from the West. That doesn’t mean kabuki theater is inferior to Handel or that algebra would somehow be more right if it had a Western origin. But why be ashamed of the culture our forefathers created?

        • There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians. The idea of sampling error alone questions any such statistics, if one group involved cannot read English, chances are their scores on an IQ test would be even lower than 80! In many places it would be difficult to find a representative sampling of minorities who had even finished grade school. Putting so much faith in “studies” should prepare you well to surrender your guns when the next leftist propaganda is released.

        • If you want to talk “population groups” then yes, there are consistent IQ differences. The IQ differences between nations have been well documented. For instance, Russians tend to score lower than Americans, and China, Japan, and some of the other nations on the Asian continent score the highest among nations over and over again. So in the US, we can acknowledge that we are dumber than most of the Asian nations, but at least we are smarter than the Russians and most other eastern European nations.
          But if you want to talk race, then no. Study after study has proven that there simply is no IQ difference purely associated with race, with the possible exception of the Ashkenazi Jews, which score a full standard deviation higher than their counterparts in every nation they live in, even when adjusted for income.

          For the intellectually challenged white supremacists out there, or even those that just want a white majority, just remember you are likely dumber than the Jews, and certainly dumber than the Asians.

        • Larry, that’s not an argument. Certain societal practices have a demonstrable impact on population IQs. First cousin marriage (incredibly common in the Islamic wold) has been shown to drop median IQs by a full standard deviation.

          Also, most reputable IQ tests are both language and education neutral.

        • Come now Taylor, we both know that “race” and “nationality” are artificial groupings that have little to no biological or sociological basis. Russia is a silly example because it is one of the most ethnically diverse nations on earth. An average “Russian” IQ doesn’t really mean anything as you can easily pick a dozen Russians at random who will have little physiological or sociological commonality aside from the nation in which their geographic location happens to fall. Don’t even get me started on the Balkans where you can’t swing a car without hitting a dozen different ethnic groups.

          However, the absurdity of the left is that they ascribe motive to final outcomes that can be easily explained by simple cultural, biological, or sociological differences between groups.

          Take my examples above.

          The reason you don’t see a lot of Western European ethnicity in the NBA is not racism.

          The reason you don’t see a large number of women in STEM or leadership positions is not a mythological “patriarchy”.

          What pisses me off is the left’s simultaneous hypocrisy of claiming to “celebrate diversity” while expecting different people to have identical outcomes.

    • And may it always be that way.
      I dont care what color you are, who you love, just be a decent human being. We wont always agree on stuff, and thats fine.
      But when you turn to violence, dont be suprised when you find someone who is better at it than you are.

  15. The Orwellian hate-speech of the intolerant, anti-civil rights bigots results from either the lack of, or the deliberate suppression of their own intellect. After all, how can we all be equal if some people are smarter than others? If George were alive today, he would be frantic trying to explain that “1984” and “Animal Farm” were written as cautionary tales. They were not written to be used as road maps or blueprints for the future.

  16. irony being all the violence shown in Dana’s video is by leftists.

    the argument i’ve heard from leftist friends is that the video is the NRA’s attempt to increase gun sales in the wake of the Trump Slump. have to disagree with that premise. i’ve seen revenue down at Sturm Ruger year-over-year which coincides with NICS but still way ahead of 2015 and prior. 2016 being the banner year for revenue and NICS.

  17. Well, if you need any more evidence what full-on leftist domestic terrorism looks like just watch any of the videos from the g20 meeting in Hamburg. You will wonder if those pictures and videos are from 1945 after the latest allied bombing or just from Kabul or somewhere in ISIS-controlled area.

    • “Well, if you need any more evidence what full-on leftist domestic terrorism looks like just watch any of the videos from the g20 meeting in Hamburg.”

      And here’s a live feed of the G20 ‘festivities’:

  18. The NRA is not a white supremacist organization! It is one of the oldest civil rights organizations if not the oldest in the US! It was the NRA that armed and taught African Americans to defend themselves from the KKK!

  19. And if you want to see what has the left REALLY PO’ed at the NRA, read this article from the Motley Fool – https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/07/01/the-real-reason-gun-sales-are-booming-its-not-what.aspx?yptr=yahoo

    The key quote is this one: “In 2015, the NSSF found females to be one of the fastest-growing groups in the sport as women involved in target shooting grew from 3.3 million to 5.3 million between 2001 and 2013. The National Rifle Association also said the number of women owning firearms jumped 77% between 2004 and 2011.”

  20. “we stand firm with the clenched first of truth while they wilt with an open mouth of lies.”

    Okay, but I think we need to kick firmly with the iron boot of truth while the left makes asses of themselves.

  21. Kudos to the NRA for doubling down on the truth against the manufactured outrage from the left. I was afraid they would capitulate, as the NRA has in the past.

    When you start taking FLAK, you know you’re over the target. Bombs away!

  22. My one gripe with the video is the hyperbolic delivery. I think it would have been even more effective is Ms. Loesch had spoken the same words in a more relaxed tone. Then when the usual suspects reacted there would be a stark contrast between their screeching and her measured delivery

    I also note that the footage was generally of privileged white kids wreaking havoc and not ‘people of color.”

    • I don’t think her delivery was that hyperbolic. I thought it was well done. The guy in the video below her was a little hyperbolic in his delivery. Sometimes you have to be that way to get your message across.

  23. Every time the Lefties talk or I read something they write these days a playlist starts in my head mostly consisting of NOFX, Rancid, The Sex Pistols, The Clash and a little bit of Dead Kennedys mixed in for good measure.

  24. For those people of the gun that hate the NRA, and there are many, this is precisely why you should support the NRA. Get over your disagreements with this or that. I belong to the GOA and SAF which are great organizations, but the NRA is your best chance to defeat the gun hating left, period. Get over it already, please!

  25. It is heartening to see both videos expressing so much asc kicking truth. Being surrounded by angry little beavers, the failed left-wing flotsam and jetsam of the destroyed and nonexistent Democrat potty is nearly as heartening.

    The anger seethes in them, just at lunch today, several family members and friends were grumbling about President Trump’s win with Putin, as if it was a war crime. Yet these same types of maroons were praising the almighty Obama as he killed innocents in nearly 20 countries on the pretext of anti-terrorism measures.

    Thank you Mrs. Loesch, thank you Mr. Stinchfield, THANK YOU TTAG!

  26. The Southern Strategy bogeyman rears its ugly head. The South voted for Carter and Clinton twice. It voted for Nixon and Reagan because they swept the nation. By the time the Republican Party took full control of the South the Klan consisted of fewer people than could fit into a Texas High School football stadium and half of them are FBI informants. And Richard Nixon had a stronger record on civil rights than Kennedy or Johnson. Affirmative Action was started by rhe Nixon Adminstration.

  27. So satisfying to see Stalinist Bolshevist heads exploding over this PSA. They have declared war on the US constitution, on the rule of law, and on the American system, and now they are being called out and advised regarding consequences. Good.

    I support your right to free speech, even if you do not support mine. I support your right to demonstrate, to voice your views. I support your right to live as you wish to live, associate with whomever you wish, and to identify as you wish.

    Understand though that when you seek to deny my God given and constitutional rights in subordination to, in favor of, or deference to whatever your perceived preemption of my God given constitutional rights may be, you will truly begin to understand – if even only for one brief and fleeting moment – what “Resistance” truly means.

  28. How astute and deft of the left political operatives who have commented here to have ‘pivoted’ the discussion to their completely bankrupt and manufactured talking points.

    Let’s pivot back to the truth. “Left” no longer describes traditional liberalism. Any notion of compassion and true egalitarianism was abandoned long ago in favor of a political religion (of sorts) of blind fanaticism which demonizes liberty and freedom, embraces totalitarian Stalinist control, and justifies any means to achieve that end.

    Let us be clear. This is not a game. You will fail.

  29. I’m an NRA life member. Not because they’re prefect, or always right, but because, like President Trump, they’re the only effective game in town. I don’t believe critics like Vin Suprynowvicz and L. Neil Smith can be faulted for labeling NRA the “largest gun-control organization on earth.” Nonetheless, when it comes to defeating Hell-hounds and devil’s disciples like the Left and radial Islam, Dana Loesch and NRA are doing the Lord’s work. Godspeed.

  30. There are so many comments I could not read them all with any relevance. This article about the NRA being chastised was turned into a racial rant. Hard to figure as I have yet seen the qualification to bear arms is to be white. On the contrary and I have never seen the NRA express racists views. Therefore it really is not relevant to the discussion.
    The Democratic party overall is anti-gun, therefore they and the swamp dwellers are anti-NRA because of the NRA’s conservative political clout, too bad. If we play into that role we are in league with the anti-gun and should be wearing a Pelosi T-shirt.

  31. Who commits the most murders blacks, or whites? I’m talking per capita too, since the black community is only 13% of the general pop. Ever watch the First 48? Who are they trying to fool here. We know the facts. It’s a no brainer and they (The Left) know the truth, but still attempt to manipullate the facts/truth.

Leave a Reply

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