TTAG Daily Digest: Protecting the Flock, The General’s AR-15 and ‘We’re Not Stopping’

Parishioners worship at the Lighthouse Mexico Church of God in late 2017.

Armed At Church: Why This Congregation Is ‘Not A Gun-Free Zone’

Can we get an amen?

When the parishioners at the Lighthouse Mexico Church Of God gather for worship each Sunday, many of them are armed.

The fact that they carry is no secret. The church, located in the small, upstate town of Mexico, N.Y., says on its website that it’s “not a gun-free zone.” Parishioners have attended the church’s services armed with concealed weapons since 2013. Pastor Ron Russell began to encourage church members to carry after Dylann Roof killed nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C.

Russell, 70, believes that it’s not just his responsibility to keep his church safe, but his sacred duty — pastors are commissioned by God to protect their flock, he says. The pastor, who’s been with the church since 1994, oversees a makeshift security team that patrols the church grounds on high alert each week.

Parkland shooting hero blames sheriff and superintendent for failing to prevent massacre

His phone is probably ringing off the hook with interview requests from NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC and MSNBC . . .

Anthony Borges, 15, a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., was hailed a hero after he used his body to protect the lives of 20 others students after accused gunman Nikolas Cruz opened fire at the school on Feb. 14, 2018, killing 17 people.

He was released from the hospital Wednesday after suffering wounds to the lungs, abdomen and legs.

Borges’ attorney read a statement from the teen during a news conference criticizing Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel and Superintendent Robert Runcie for the massacre.  Borges, too weak to talk, sat silently in a wheelchair with his right leg propped up. His statement specifically attacked the Promise program, a school district and sheriff office initiative that allows students who commit minor crimes on campus to avoid arrest if they complete rehabilitation. Runcie has said Cruz, a former Stoneman Douglas student, was never in the program, but Borges and his attorney, Alex Arreaza, said school and sheriff’s officials knew Cruz was dangerous.

Driving Advice For Women In 1909: Don’t Forget To Bring A Gun

Some things never change . . .

Life wasn’t easy for women in the early 20th century and race car driver and motorist Dorothy Levitt knew that for a fact. That’s why she published The Woman and the Car: A Chatty Little Handbook for all Women who Motor or Who Want to Motor in 1909. It tells women how to take care of themselves and their cars, and reminds them to always carry a gun.

The book was published for women a little like Dorothy: someone who wanted their own little slice of freedom but who weren’t sure how to get it. The automobile provided a huge opportunity to give women autonomy, and Ms. Levitt wanted women to know how to take control of their lives in this one, simple way. So, in a very conversational tone, she guided young ladies through the process of purchasing, starting, driving and repairing their own cars.

Pro-gun rights activists rally against new measures on firearm sales in Vermont – Vermont is a constitutional carry state . . .

Several hundred people gathered in Vermont Saturday to denounce new gun restriction measures that await the governor’s signature before becoming law.

Some protesters brought along guns to rallies in South Burlington, Barre and Bennington.

Pro Rights 2A organizer Christopher Covey said it’s not the gun that people should fear — “it’s the gun in the wrong hand.”

George Washington Would Have Owned an AR-15

First the gun-control zealots insisted that the right to bear arms, the second of ten delineated individual rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights was not an individual right. Then, when the U.S. Supreme Court said in Heller Vs. D.C. (2008) that it was in fact an individual right, the argument was that the ruling only applied to the federal enclave known as the District of Columbia. When the Supreme Court in MacDonald vs. Chicago said it was indeed a national right, the argument turned to “sensible restrictions” such as arguing the Founding Fathers did not anticipate semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Well, neither did they anticipate the Internet, social media, and blogs when they protected free speech and the press in the First Amendment. True, some freedoms are not absolute, such as yelling “fire” in the proverbial crowded theatre, but as regards the Second Amendment one fact is paramount. When it was written the both the government and the people had the same weapon — the musket — which could be called the semi-automatic weapon of its day. The Second Amendment did not come with an asterisk nor is any of our rights enshrined in the Constitution in any way dependent on technology.

Yet U.S. District Judge William Young perceived a qualifying asterisk when he dismissed a case challenging the Massachusetts ban on so-called “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines.

‘We are not stopping,’ students vow at gun violence town halls – Have they heard the latest crime stats from London? . . .

At about 240 meetings nationwide — and at least two in New Jersey — student-led groups held “Town Halls for Our Lives” to address the issue of gun control following the mass shooting in Florida.

“We are not stopping our movement until we see common-sense gun legislation and know that we are safe,” said Laurence Fine, 14, of Ridgewood, a member of Students Demand Action Bergen County. The organization has members from 20 high schools representing 28 towns in the county.

At the Unitarian Society of Ridgewood, Students Demand Action Bergen County hosted a town meeting that drew U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell and U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez to share their efforts on this front.

comments

  1. avatar FedUp says:

    You DO have the freedom to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, that’s why they can’t preemptively cut out your tongue before they let you in.

    You DO NOT have the freedom to escape the consequences of your actions should you falsely yell ‘fire’ and cause harm to others…

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “You DO have the freedom to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, that’s why they can’t preemptively cut out your tongue before they let you in.”

      Well, that’s kinda… Permanent.

      I prefer the analogy of duct-taping movie viewer’s mouths shut while in the theater…

      1. avatar 16V says:

        I am so tired of the “fire in the movie theater” falsehood stupidity.

        There are other solutions for eh-holes in the movie Geoff…

        1. avatar ava8harrierusmc1 says:

          Thank you for that its just shows you that sometimes assholes need to show respect others because you never no when someone will put you in your place.

          Thank god for Hollywood they can do it the best.

          Next we will have movies like this will be made illegal to watch to own and so forth.

          Just like Daffy Duck Woody Wood Pecker and Bugs Bunny all because they can make kids act out like them.

          And the list is growing.

          As a black man i go shooting every 4TH of July now for the last ten years with my AR .223 AND 6.8 mm.

          But here is the bitch about this i am now homeless and have been for the last 2 1/2 years I could sell them but I’m not all because it is my right to bear arms legally and this right will not be taken away from me even if I homeless.

          My toys
          Mini 14
          M1A Standard
          M1A SoCom
          Mossberg MVP .308
          AR .223
          AR 6.8mm
          Mossberg Shotgun
          Springfield 4′ 40cal
          and more but i’m completely legal here in the State of Calif all have paperwork stating that i own them all are locked up in a $1000.00 gun safe. I may not have roof over my head but i will never give up the right to bear arms.
          Semper Fi

      2. avatar coagula says:

        Silence is golden… Duct Tape is silver…

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I’ve always liked “silence is golden and so is pee.”

    2. avatar Mad Max says:

      Yes. You certainly can yell fire in a crowded theater; when it is actually on fire.

      Most theaters today are equipped with automatic fire sprinklers anyway. Kinda makes the analogy obsolete.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        Absolutely not.
        You are welcome to sit in a burning theater while the sprinklers slow down the spread of the fire.
        However, most people with any sense at all will want to evacuate.

    3. avatar Setnakhte says:

      People who mouth the “shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” phrase need to reread Brandenburg v. Ohio.

    4. avatar Sian says:

      Yelling fire in a crowded theater is akin to drawing your handgun and firing it.

      Unless there’s an actual critical emergency requiring such, it’s a bad move. If there’s need for it though, you’ll be glad you can.

      Having the ability to do either is well within our rights. Telling us we can’t be armed in a theater is akin to gagging all theater-goers on the chance they might yell ‘fire’ frivolously. It would also really hurt concessions sales.

    5. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      As much as I agree that you can legally, and in some situations should, shout fire in a crowded theater, the analogy is a good one for what limitations are proper on both speech and the bearing of arms.

      Principle 1: Speech that causes a direct and appreciable harm should be subject to criminal legislation. Principle 2: Use of arms that causes a direct and appreciable harm should be subject to criminal legislation.

      Example 1: Yelling fire in a crowded area that is not in need of an evacuation, causing injury to many in the crowd.

      Example 2: Brandishing a firearm in a crowded area that is not in need of a defensive gun use, causing injury to many in the crowd.

      Example 3: Threatening harm on another in a manner that meets the definition of assault. (Either with speech or use of a firearm).

      1. avatar Mark says:

        Uh, no. Really, the “shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” trope really needs to be permanently extinguished.

        Speech can only be restricted for inciting *imminent lawless action*; even the “clear and present danger” standard isn’t sufficient cause. Take a better look at Brandenburg v. Ohio.

        In your example, you’re also conveniently ignoring that the speaker isn’t causing anyone any harm, though those who choose to exit in a disorderly fashion might be harming others in the process. Thankfully, we don’t criminalize high-profile criticism of Islam even if the likely response to such speech is harm brought upon people in the vicinity of any Islamist thugs.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Fine Mark, instead of criminal liability, let’s go with civil liability.

      2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        “.. the analogy is a good one for what limitations are proper on both speech and the bearing of arms.”

        No.

        The Fire Yelling comparison needs to stop.

        And the reason is one of prior constraint. You do not need to get a Not-Gonna-Yell-permit before entering a theater (carry permit). You do not need to prove you are not a yeller before attending a show (NICS background check). You do not need to wear a gag during the show (safe-storage laws).

        The laws on yelling in a theater are quite simple and all take effect AFTER you have commenced your vocal fusillade, not before.

        Laws regarding yelling fire in theaters are just like laws regarding shooting people without cause. After you have committed a crime there may be consequences to your action. There are no consequences before the action because this is (supposed to be) a free nation of free men.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Chip, you realize you are agreeing with me? If the 2A was treated as the “don’t shout fire in a theater” example, all your examples would apply to the 2A. Meaning that if the same standard for speech (in the example) was applied to the 2A, licensing schemes, background checks, and safe storage laws would not be legal.

    6. avatar Jim Macklin says:

      If there is a fire, you have a duty to yell “fire- fuego, FIRE, fuego”
      Fwaygo, Every time the Spanish pirate ship fired on the English ship the Spaish captain shouted Fwaygo and even as a child 60 years ago I learn a little Spanish.

      General Washington would have had an M4 and an M134.

  2. avatar Freebird says:

    Feel Good Story of The Week ….. N.Y safe act has gone largely IGNORED with only about 5 % of gun owners registering with State Police , and SHhhhhh …. many police departments openly REFUSING to enforce it.

    B.T.W. — If you did register , now you must do so again and PROVE your innocence to the ” kings ” satisfaction.

    ( note : the poll in the article was by a Bloomberg anti gun group , that was left out )

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-safe-act-weapons-registry-numbers-released-article-1.2267730

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “…N.Y safe act has gone largely IGNORED with only about 5 % of gun owners registering with State Police…”

      What you *must* do is demand they enforce that law, or repeal it.

      1. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

        Laws that are a severe abridgement of the people’s natural rights do not have to be enforced and can (morally) be ignored.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Morals are nice but don’t keep you out of prison. Laws can.

          It doesn’t matter if the law is largely ignored if you’re the subject when it isn’t.

  3. avatar Mater says:

    Why does anybody care what a 14 year old says?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Why does anybody care what a 14 year old says?”

      Seriously.

      Just saw an article today that said only 66 percent of millennials are confident the earth is round.

      Compared to 80 percent of all Americans that are confident the earth is round.

      And they are seriously considering lowering the age to vote?

      https://www.livescience.com/62220-millennials-flat-earth-belief.html

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        You should listen to the flat Earth stuff on the Joe Rogan Podcast. You’d lose your mind at the shit flat earthers say.

        It’s hilarious.

      2. avatar 16V says:

        Gads. That’s the sad state of science education in ‘Murrica, I guess.

        I mean I could forgive a poll of say, kindergartners for not being 100% sure that the Earth is frakkin’ (roughly) spherical. Anybody over the age of 10? Time for the 43rd trimester abortions. Even the Army couldn’t find a single use (including cannon fodder) for someone with an IQ of 83 or below.

        Oh well, trophies for everyone!

      3. avatar former water walker says:

        Welllllll…even the Hebrew bible states”the LORD sits above the CIRCLE of the earth”- Isaiah 40:22. So much for superstitious ancient folk. My church is most certainly not a “gunfree zone”. AMEN…

      4. avatar Music makes the world go flat says:

        What if there was a miscommunication between Sir Isaac and his spell-checker? What if the Earth is really flat, sort of like an accretion disk, and at the center is a vast super-dense area made up not of black hole stuff, but what Newton actually called, “Grabitall”? Grabitall would be so super dense so it would constantly sink out of sight, but it would also be so volatile that the slightest exposure to air would cause it to vanish instantly. Unknown, unseen, just waiting for anything on the edges of its “plate of influence” to be sucked down by the incredible space warping density that causes everything to roll downhill, so to speak. That would explain why there is no “gravity”, but everything appears to fall down.

        It would also explain why, hundreds of years ago, people didn’t think there was enough space or food on Earth for any more billions of people. As people and other stuff is absorbed by the accretion disk, it gets bigger and stronger. That’s also why the Montgolfier Brothers and the Wright brothers were able to go aloft with only minimal power, but now you need immensely powerful jets and rockets to go up, and why the Chinese satellite fell down.

        We will never run out of space on Earth, but eventually the Earth will get so big that it will touch the fabric boundaries at the edges of the universe, and since it’s spinning, it will cut through like a Black and Decker saw blade.
        When that happens, we will enter the universe next door, and start all over again.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “That’s also why the Montgolfier Brothers and the Wright brothers were able to go aloft with only minimal power, but now you need immensely powerful jets and rockets to go up, and why the Chinese satellite fell down.”

          *sigh*

          Whatever you’re smoking, can I have some from your bag?

          Ultralight Montgolfier Brothers-sized hot air balloons are very much a thing, dude :

          https://www.apexballoons.com/ultralights/

        2. avatar Music makes the world go flat says:

          I know, right?
          My bad! My bag is still up in the air, somewhere, and I’m waiting for it to come down so I can go up!

        3. avatar ironicatbest says:

          Fuckin awesome dude. Here I was uptight about space n time when ironically it’s just a black n decker pecker wrecker

        4. avatar Music makes the world go flat says:

          Pritty much. Just don’t git too close to the edge of that big spinnin’ dics. Somethin’ mite fall off!

          Sorry. I meant “disc”.

      5. avatar Mad Max says:

        I think the kids should have to pass a (real) citizenship test to register to vote.

        Maybe, we should require everyone to take the same test before the next general election. That will stop any “blue wave” in it’s tracks.

        1. avatar 2004done says:

          Mad Max: I doubt you or I could pass any test approved by the RINO-crats (the majority party in DC).

        2. avatar Mad Max says:

          There is an existing test used for those applying for US citizenship. I took a sample version and passed with 100%.

          I doubt many high school students could pass it because many schools no longer teach civics. They would have to study independently.

      6. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        I have a feeling that the only thing that survey “proves” is that people lie on surveys. Maybe also that millennials have a twisted sense of humor?

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      It would be good idea to listen to the young person if she had something smart and insightful to say.
      When someone says something as naive and dumb as: “We are not stopping our movement until we see common-sense gun legislation and know that we are safe,” s/he deserves no attention, no matter his/her age.

      There is no legislation, common sense or not, that can make or keep anyone safe. Murder is already illegal.

  4. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    The scariest thing in America is an articulate black person with a gun.
    The second most scariest thing in America is a articulate Christian with a gun.

    The atheist and homosexual who is socialist progressive in their political orientation are terrified. Do they really support the American Bill of Rights????

    1. avatar Bruce says:

      Actually, yes, a great many of them do:
      http://www.pinkpistols.org/

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        I don’t believe atheists and homosexuals who are mostly socialist progressive in their political orientation support the Bill Of Rights. The ones that really matter are the elected atheists and homosexual who have worked to deny civil rights to american citizens.

        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/07/robert-farago/advocate-pink-pistols-call-arms-misguided-misinformed-utterly-irresponsible/

        “Ammiano was instrumental in getting rid of San Francisco’s High School competitive .22 cal rifle teams, and worked to put an end to the junior ROTC program in San Francisco’s High Schools. Ammiano supported the ban on allowing gun owners to carry an unloaded gun in public. “Whether a gun is loaded or not, it’s still an act of intimidation and bullying,” Ammiano said.”

        https://calwatchdog.com/2013/01/29/anti-gun-lawmakers-lead-hearing-today/

        The proud white homosexual state senator Tom Ammiano wrote the law that made handgun buyers in California, wait an additional 10 days to receive their handguns. I wonder how many women have been raped, how many stalking victims have been attacked because this homosexual white man believes women or anyone else should wait longer to get a gun????

        I guess homosexual white men (people), are so much smarter than rape victims. Since they believe a woman should wait longer to get a gun.

        https://www.advocate.com/politics/2016/6/15/tammy-baldwin-needs-your-help-gun-control-video

        Have the Pink Pistols ever publicly protested against an elected anti civil rights homosexual law maker????

    2. avatar TStew says:

      I wouldn’t leave the religious and/or straight progressives out of the equation there, bro…

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        As a black gun owner I plead guilty to focusing on white homosexuals, elected or not, who say they are a “minority” and who want to take away my gun civil rights.

        1. avatar Jim Macklin says:

          In 1866 freed slaves and formerly free blacks were almost 100% Republicans because the Republican Party formed as an anti-slavery party. Abe Lincoln was the first Republican Presidential candidate and he won because the voters [mostly Caucasian or pink skinned] voted for him.
          The Democrats were the party of the Southern gentlemen and they fired the first shots of the Civil War. After the war the Democrats organized the KKK as night riders to keep the “uppity people” in line.
          The Congress passed civil rights laws and the 13th and 14th amendments. The old, hold-over SCOTUS Justices ignored Congressional intent and until 2008 and 2010 the Court did not incorporate the Second Amendment.
          Just how the Democrat Party got 90+% of the black vote is a puzzle. It was the Republicans in Congress who passed the 1964 Civil Rights and Voting Acts over the objections of the Democrats lead by Senator [ and Grand Wizard ] Byrd.
          Even before that it was Republican President Eisenhower who enforced school integration by sending in armed troops to Little Rock.
          I like my version of the Second Amendment. I made one change and inserted a note for clarity.
          A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ? [Yes, therefore]
          “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “It was the Republicans in Congress who passed the 1964 Civil Rights and Voting Acts over the objections of the Democrats lead by Senator [ and Grand Wizard ] Byrd.”

          Yes, but it was a Democrat president who signed it. One rule of thumb for politics is that the president gets the credit/blame for everything that happens while he is president.

          Most voters are ignorant of the most basic facts (no further qualifier needed).

        3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          Lyndon Johnson was Senator Johnson and president of the u.s. Senate. He stopped the Civil Rights voting bill that President and former General Eisenhower asked for. Eisenhower had listened to the complaints of his black soldiers in Europe during the war. He wanted to correct these injustices or at least start to try to. But Senator Johnson and then Senator John F Kennedy both voted against civil rights for black people I believe in the year 1957.

          Both Johnson and Kennedy were racist pigs and were never friends of black voters. Both of them were opportunists and both were morally challenged individuals.

        4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          No argument from me on Johnson being a despicable character. I honestly never paid much attention to Kennedy. The hero worship surrounding “Camelot” always sickened me.

          But the fact remains that Jonson signed it. Most people have no idea what goes on in the Senate right now. Just about the only people who remember what went on in the Senate before they were born are historians. Obviously there are exceptions, but those are few and far between.

    3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      To me, the scariest thing is a Republican politician voting for gun control.

  5. avatar CZJay says:

    You can yell “fire” in a theater if there is a fire. It’s when you yell “fire” when there is no fire and people get hurt in the ensuing panic, you are then liable for what happened to those people because you made a false claim.

    You can’t defame or libel people because those statements are untrue and they will hurt the reputation of someone, which could cause loss of money or relationships. However, if those statements are true you can say them as a matter of fact regardless of the negative outcomes that will occur to that person as it’s not your fault that person did those things.

    You can also “threaten” people if you don’t actually have the means to carry out that “threat.” If you have a Glock and tell someone you are going to find them then shoot them in the head with your Glock, you could be charged with a crime. Harassment can also be a crime and could get you court ordered to stay away from the person you are harassing.

    Hate speech is protected regardless of how disgusting it is. Racists can hold a protest if they do it in a legal manner. You can be racist all you want if you do not physically harm people. Once you harm someone you will be charged with that specific crime and a hate crime charge just to dig the knife deeper.

    The speech isn’t a crime in of itself. It’s the call to action that can get you in trouble. Instructing people to hunt down Trump voters and beat them up is much different than saying you dreamt of beating up Trump supporters.

    The only restrictions on “guns” should be things like brandishing and unjustified assault or homicide. In other words, just like speech, the gun itself shouldn’t be restricted; it’s the actions that do unjustifiable harm that should carry a punishment.

    If anti self preservation people want to treat speech like they want to treat guns, they have to institute the same system the Communist Chinese do for the Internet. Let’s see how quick they start complaining about everyone knowing who they are and all the things they ever done on the Internet. They already complain about see through backpacks. If you are not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide? We can also have weekly house searches to make sure you don’t have anything illegal or dangerous in your home. If you have nothing to hide, you won’t mind.

    1. avatar 16V says:

      “Hate speech is protected regardless of how disgusting it is.”

      Jay, while I totally agree with you, perhaps you’ve missed the last 10 years or so? There are actual legal punishments (quite severe) for not referring to a whack-job in the way the whack-job sees as appropriate.

      Not to mention other legal prohibitions against “hate speech”.

    2. avatar Jim Macklin says:

      From now on, you and your children are being trained to be racist by the main stream media that uses language such as
      F bomb
      N word
      and a host of other phrases that create the climate.
      Can any of you, can your children hear F bomb and not say f_ _ck or N word and not say —
      They make the words special and attractive. Your kids will learn what they mean. Rappers will use the words and worse.
      The movie BLAZING SADDLES used the words and thus made the words powerless. But TV removes the words or edits in new words.
      I don’t believe Mel Brooks is anti-Semitic, anti-black, anti-Asian but the movie lost a lot of its “good civics lessons” because we are afraid of words and history.

  6. avatar MLee says:

    I’m really happy to see us gun owners increasingly taking the “eat sh– and die” if you don’t like it approach. The antis got a little perceived wind in their sails after the Parkland incident…. because LE and various agencies dropped a huge ass ball. We all need to step it up now because the time for being nice is beyond being over. The talking points have all been repeatedly blended and churned out the same bland boring goo.

    I’m doing a March For Our Rights on the 21st. I’m doing it if for nothing else just to be a body in a crowd….well plus the fact I will be packing a fully loaded AK47 with a 40 round magazine. That’s the best part, because I can and I’m going to, and I sincerely hopes it PISSES off some wanna be gun grabber. I’ll be absolutely polite with my insincere smile, like saying politely “God Bless You” when in reality I mean F—- you, and they know it.

    My attitude has now become, you want to take and I’m not giving.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Personally, I wouldn’t carry a rifle to a rally/protest for the human right of self preservation. Nor would I wear any camo or hunting apparel. I wouldn’t preach about religion or play the Democrat vs Republican game.

      I don’t want to be stereotyped and discounted. I want to look just like all the non gun people. I would speak respectfully and be polite regardless of the hate. I don’t want to come off as a militant, NRA lover, who enjoys killing fluffy animals and throws up a middle finger at a bunch of crying women. I want to be a nice unassuming person with a gun on my hip that you didn’t notice was there because I didn’t come off as a threat. I want to be the “model minority” while the anti self preservation crowd look like a bunch of violent bigots who worship the “shoot first, cover up second” government enforcers.

      Wear the white hat while carrying a black gun. Let them wear the black hat.

      1. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

        ^^^^^same here. Gun rights people should come off as the epitome of civilized. And if you DO carry a rifle to such a protest, in particular be on best behavior.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I don’t want to be stereotyped and discounted. I want to look just like all the non gun people. I would speak respectfully and be polite regardless of the hate. I don’t want to come off as a militant, NRA lover, who enjoys killing fluffy animals and throws up a middle finger at a bunch of crying women. I want to be a nice unassuming person with a gun on my hip that you didn’t notice was there because I didn’t come off as a threat.

        CZJay,

        By and large, it does not matter what you do, how you look, nor how “polite” you are to gun-grabbers: gun-grabbers are going to view you and portray you as evil-incarnate.

        At best, looking nice, being polite, and presenting rock-solid factual AND emotional arguments may reach some fence sitters. The question you have to ask is how many fence-sitters would be counter-protesting such a rally? My hunch is about zero.

        You have to keep in mind that gun-grabbers are fearful, angry, and hateful people who want to see government silence us, imprison us, and/or kill us even though we have no desire and no intention to attack anyone. In other words gun-grabbers want to attack us: they simply do it by proxy through government. We would never advocate dressing up nice and being polite to a rapist, armed robber, or crazed violent attacker. Why would we advocate being polite to crazed violent attackers who attack us by proxy?

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          The majority of people are not actively fighting for either side; they are just minding their business. How you are perceived by those people is very important because first impressions are a lasting one.

          When people see a video or picture they will judge the people by what they see in that moment. If they see a bunch of anti self preservation people spitting in the face of a nice respectful person who is non violent, those people don’t get to claim the moral high ground as they always like to do. People don’t like bullies. Just having a gun doesn’t make you a bully…

          You have to look like and act like the most respectable person there. The populace want the people who will lead them to be very “presidential.” If give off a great image and put out good information, it’s hard to disagree with you without looking like a liar.

          Barack Obama was able to fool people simply by looking good and sounding good. People literally thought he was the best President ever just based on that.

          You need to be relatable and speak to the people’s internal truth. When you do that, people stop and listen (they may even cry). You’re not trying to change their mind, you are trying to change them. When you can do that, that’s when you become very dangerous to the government.

          http://archive.org/details/the-black-panthers-vanguard-of-the-revolution-2015-720p-hdtv-x264?start=3841

  7. avatar strych9 says:

    Why does that guy have his mags sagging forward on his carrier (rhetorical!)? FFS decent mag pouches are not that expensive. Stop buying cheap shit!

    Oh, and go do some PT fatboy. You’re making us look bad.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Less burritos, more taco pouches?

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Bazinga! Well played, Sir.

  8. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Hoggwash. Student hero Hogg was the one who threw himself in front of the hail of bullets, mortally wounded he disarmed Cruz, it was his heroic actions that saved the lives of thousands. Just ask him, he will tell you all about it

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Hogg will pay Anthony Borgess a personal visit and “politely convince” Borgess to change his story and follow the proper direction.

      There is no room for heresy or improper thought among progressives.

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        “There is no room for heresy or improper thought among progressives.”
        There is no room for improper thought among progressives. Unapproved and improper thoughts are heresy, and punishable by death.
        Fixed it for you….

  9. avatar Mark N. says:

    Hey Kid, when are you going to figure out that there ain’t nobody who is guaranteeing your “safety,” You aren’t “safe” now–you never were. On the other hand, statistically speaking, you aren’t a whole lot less safe now then 14 year olds were 50 years ago, at least in the Untied States. Further south, not so much.

  10. avatar mandrake the magician says:

    ‘We are not stopping,’ students vow at gun violence town halls

    well… you will be stopped, you scum!
    you WILL be!

    its an absolute outrage that moral, decent, law-abiding US citz’ are actually ‘tolerating’ these insufferable people, these total moral vacuums, these people of low moral worth, these absolute “bottom feeders”, these irredeemable reprobates to open their filthy, damn mouths…..

    their claims and their opinions are worthless garbage…..not worthy of a minute’s notice from decent, honest people!

    if they weren’t being funded to the tune of $hundreds of millions$ by a bunch of gun-grabbing billionaire BASTARDs, they would be given less attention than the inmates of an asylum for the criminally insane!

    1. avatar ironicatbest says:

      The question we pose is “When’s them sons a bitches going come an take our gunzz”? We get kinda particular about our property around here.

  11. avatar Joe R. says:

    “but as regards the Second Amendment one fact is paramount. When it was written the both the government and the people had the same weapon — the musket — which could be called the semi-automatic weapon of its day.”

    When America started, the vast majority of it’s military might came from what its citizens brought to the table. The Framers were protecting its own best-source for weaponry with the 2nd Amendment.

    ” “We are not stopping our movement until we see common-sense gun legislation and know that we are safe,” ”
    Your government cannot even protect itself on an individual level, stupid. We’ll stop your movement for you, you’ll pinch it when we cut off your source of prunes (soros / bloomberg).

    In Kuwait, days before going into Iraq our Gunny said (to get our thinking right) “Everyone here, wants to kill you. And don’t worry me being wrong about that because, if I am, I will kill you.”

  12. avatar Sian says:

    “George Washington Would Have Owned an AR-15 –”

    Washington was a large and powerful man and may have preferred the increased range and punch of an AR-10.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      George Washington would have owned an M-4.

  13. avatar Gregolas says:

    Spent 3 hours Saturday teaching a church security team all about the Bible and self-defense. In his farewell to elders at Ephesus, Paul told them, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Eph. 20: 28.

  14. avatar Ralph says:

    I’ve never yelled “Fire!” in a movie theater, but I have yelled “Movie!” at a gun range.

    1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      You’re lucky you didn’t get trampled in the stampede of people fleeing.

  15. avatar Mater says:

    We need to push for land ownership to vote… if you don’t own anything just shut up and sit down and let the grown ups talk…

    1. avatar Victor says:

      So in other words, you maintain that America should create a class of people who should be subject to taxation without representation.

      That’s a great idea! We all know exactly how well that works out!

  16. avatar OldProf49 says:

    I wish you people would learn to write as well as a 5th grader! Have any of you ever heard of Spell Check or Grammar Check? It’s an embarrassing stereotype that “gun people” are illiterate and you’re not helping. It may surprise you to learn that literate, well educated people also shoot guns. And WE can communicate our positive experiences to others!
    Let the illiterate hate mail begin!

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      I once posted a perfectly imperfect sentence. It didn’t have a single response. Was it not funny? Did no one notice?

  17. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Either you support the Right to Keep and BEAR Arms , or you don’t. Many so called gun owners claim they support the second amendment. Well having the right to BEAR arms, were every you go, is the other half of the second amendment.

    I understand some people (gun owners ) are uncomfortable with open carry.
    Get over it.
    Its a civil right in the United States. It should always be done in a polite and courteous manner. It is the responsible way to conduct yourself and teach other people their rights.

    I will use the Dorthy Levitt story as source material, thanks.

  18. avatar DrDKW says:

    I doubt mainstream media wants to hear from Mr Borges until he’s ready to conform to the ‘party-narrative’.
    As for Broward’s ‘Promise Program’, It would be nice if sheriff Israel, supevisor Runcie, and a number of other Broward officials could be at least retired without benefits.
    Here in Fairfax County, Virginia, it’s called ‘Diversion First’, and it’s supposed to send “nonviolent offenders and those suffering with mental illness to rehabilitation”.
    Now in it’s second year, we’ll see if this contributes to another school massacre someday!

    DrDKW

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