“The NRA released a divisive new video [below] timed to the one-year anniversary of the Dallas police shootings,” The Trace’s email blasts announces. “The minute-long spot, entitled ‘My Brother,’ is narrated by a sister of one of the fallen officers, who says, “While there are those in the media who paint our police as criminals … the NRA backs our blue.”

I suppose that calling out the mainstream media for characterizing cops as murderous racist thugs could be considered “divisive” — at least amongst those who gain influence by getting as many people to view the police as murderous racist thugs as possible.

Then again . . .

The NRA has its own motives for supporting police, and a huge blind spot when it comes to the politics of law enforcement. Although the NRA receives income from police training, it claims it doesn’t have a political axe to grind.

Although the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is involved in politics, the Law Enforcement Division does not get involved with political issues. Providing the best training possible to our law enforcement officers is our number one priority. We have only one goal in mind — to provide every law enforcement officer in the country with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to WIN a lethal encounter!

Yes, well, as a whole, the NRA’s support for the boys in blue is both unquestioning and uncritical — even when law enforcement works against the interests of firearms freedom, as it sometimes does.

For example, the NRA doesn’t directly challenge (or pressure) the high-profile big city police chiefs and powerful law enforcement organizations that routinely lobby against NRA-backed gun rights restoration (e.g., Florida legislation for open and constitutional carry).

While it’s a good thing that the NRA sticks up for law and order generally, and hard-working law-abiding cops specifically, the average American’s gun rights should be their primary concern. Which is why the NRA’s silence on the Philando Castile homicide is more than a little worrying.

The days of NRA veep Wayne LaPierre labeling ATF Agents “jack-booted thugs” are over. Not because they’re not, but because the NRA is now so closely allied with law enforcement that they can’t — or won’t — single out police officers, commanders or their fraternal organizations for being on the wrong side of the gun rights divide.

Your thoughts?

Recommended For You

124 Responses to The Trace: Pro-Police NRA Ad is ‘Divisive’

  1. I admit I’m rather pleased with the reaction from the Left on Dana’s ‘fist of truth’ video.

    It hurt them. Bad.

    Don’t change course, NRA. Produce a rebuttal to their BLM hate video…

    • Someone here said it best the other day. You know you’re over the target when you’re getting the most flak.

  2. I’m all for division (divisiveness is a stupid word).

    It let’s us know unambiguously who the enemy is.

  3. My thoughts are that using Castile as an example of the NRA’s unyielding support for the police is a stupid choice, as can be seen by the division of opinion on the issue on this site. The people who come here regularly are the target demographic for NRA membership, i.e., gun people. This issue is divisive among gun people. The NRA would piss off a ton of people in their target population by taking any stance on the Castile case.

    Also, I think you’re bringing Castile up to get a ton of comments arguing back and forth about whose fault the whole thing was.

    • The Castile case was a good example. Anyone that watched the dashcam video can see that office was wrong and shouldn’t have ever been a cop. The NRAs silence on that case was deafening. The NRA works for us not cops.

        • That’s a good point. I’d like to see the numbers on that. LEOs seem to have all the NRA’s, “unquestioning and uncritical — even when law enforcement works against the interests of firearms freedom” support, and receive unlimited benefits of their training. I doubt many of them see the need to dig in their own pockets for it. I gave up on the NRA a long time ago, and I certainly do enough to support the police by paying my taxes. I don’t need to get dinged again by the NRA.

      • BS! The Castile dashcam video shows what the Officer said and did, but NOT what the Officer saw the suspect doing from his vantage point standing next to, and looking straight down into the drivers position. Without knowing exactly what the Officer saw from his vantage point, there is no way to know exactly whether he reacted correctly or not…..period! The old saying….walk a mile in someone else’s shoes comes to mind.

        • I disagree, even my dad who worked on a hospital police dept, and supervisor of a private armed security detachment for a gated community disagreed…That P/O fired wildly into that car! With a child and a passenger…No, this guy shouldn’t have been a cop, and he should in jail….Just another anti-2nd amendment police stooge, And a cop carve-out for the police community…Which is receiving special privileges and dispensation to maintain IT’S own “advanced 2nd amendment privileges through job entitlements”…While assisting the Left-wing Globalists with the disarmament of the citizenry….Or SHOULD I remind you folks about states in need of immediate 2nd Amendment reform as WHAT President Trump stated he would do! How about those state where infringements AGAINST The Bill of Rights is a daily event…Like California, NJ., Connecticut, Massachusetts, NY. , MD., etc…

        • The fact that your dad was a hospital cop doesn’t mean he is magically able to use ESP to see what the officer in question saw looking in the car.

          Also, this: “.” is a period. You only need one of them to end a sentence.

        • The only thing the cop could have seen was a citizen obeying orders and reaching for his driver’s license.

        • Why the FLAME DELETED did that FLAME DELETED “officer” put himself in the firing line? Why the FLAME DELETED did he not just FLAME DELETED stand behind and to the left of Mr Castillo, as EVERY COP EVER is trained to do when approaching a suspect? If he really thought Castillo was an armed robbery suspect, why the FLAME DELETED didn’t he wait for backup and then order Castillo and his GF out of the car, hands up?

          Yanez had NO business being a cop, ever. He’s an idiot and a danger to those around him.

      • “Anyone that watched the dashcam video can see . . . ”

        Any comment that begins with “anyone can see” or “everyone obviously knows . . .” or anything of that ilk can be immediately written off as unhelpful and probably uninformed.

        If “anyone can see”, there’d be nothing to discuss.

        It’s a tactic to shut up opposition.

  4. My thoughts? Some of the best words I’ve seen from you RF. THAT being said “you can’t always get what you want”. Like the “never Trump” idiots who claim moral superiority while having NO alternative save whining(or voting Johnson or protesting’cause Donnie is crass). The NRA is by far the big dog-rarely do others even get a radar blip or a seat at the table of power…I guess being well into my 60’s I expect mediocrity or abject failure be it Vietnam,mideast endless war or the NRA doing anymore than it’s doing NOW…

  5. What can be gained by making an enemy of law enforcement or expecting the NRA to pick a fight with them? Do facts support the notion that the LE
    Are majority against gun rights?
    No one knows for sure and a survey would be hard to take. If anything attitudes are likely to shift on the issues.

  6. Many of those big-city police chiefs:

    1. Have never served as a cop, having only what they were told in college; and,
    2. Are beholden to a leftist yellow-stream political whore for their generous salaries.

    Those aren’t the cops with whom the NRA stands. At least, that’s been my experience.

  7. Everyday we will hear from these snowflakes how divisive we are or how we promote violence when in reality we want to take a stand and defend ourselves. Yet all the mainstream media idiots like Counterfeit News Network are behind the trigger.
    When you really look at the depth of how the left, mainstream media, BLM and ANIFTA are approaching everything, it’s a downright cold civil war with pockets of combat and the left declared it.
    I’m glad the NRA is speaking out and I hope they continue the messaging. .

  8. You’re siding with the Trace? kapo bloomberg’s bought and paid for gun.org? What next? You going to hire comrade more dead soldiers?

    • He hasn’t commented in a bit. I wonder if he was recently in the news for a stunt in DC at a GOP baseball game…

      • comrade more dead soldiers will send other, more expendable people, to do that kind of dirty work. He wants to stay safe so he can collect his reward from the politburo.

        He thinks he’s finally going to be somebody if he just gets communism into power here.

        • As any “useful idiot” like moredeadsoldiers, that supports communistic based movements such as progressivism; his only reward will be a bullet in the back of his head by his master’s hand, if he no longer serves a purpose.

          Why anyone would fight for a belief that specifically denies individual human rights; that specifically sees each individual as a non-entity that only serves a purpose to some amorphous “collective good” that is determined by some unelected ruling dictator/junta, is bizarre beyond belief.

          It must be based in an essential level of self hatred and a level of contempt of self that most people with any level of self respect can never really understand.

  9. I’m pleasantly surprised and happy that my NRA has upped it’s media game. They are scoring hits and the antis are not happy.

  10. Ahem. The killing of Philandro Castile has been a source of speculation, an immense amount of commentary pro and con, and a rallying cry for Black Lives Matter and other organizations who saw it as yet another example of cops illegally killing black men. What you, RF, and everyone else needs to keep in mind is that Jeronimo Yanez was tried before a jury of his peers who heard ALL of the evidence and testimony and after due deliberation, Yanez was acquitted of the charges against him.

    A very long time ago I was in a similar situation. Unless you have been, you have no idea of the terror which pervades your thinking when you suddenly realize that there is a reasonable possibility that the individual you’re confronting has the means and likely intent to kill you. If you aren’t afraid, you’re a damned fool. So you react in the way in which humans have for millennia, doing whatever you can do in an instant to preserve your life.

    If you’re a decent human being, you’ll replay the incident over and over in your mind, thinking “Did I do what I should have or could have done? Was there another way of doing things, something else I could have done or said so that I didn’t have to kill that man?” Instead, Philandro Castile is dead – and Jeronimo Yanez is a haunted man for the remainder of his life.

    • Mike, I can’t argue with what you say, and I pray that neither I nor anyone I hold dear has to face a similar situation.

    • Mike Betts,

      Here is the problem that I have with your portrayal of the Philandro Castile event: you can define virtually every encounter with another person as justifying deadly force. Every time a person so much as flinches, you can claim that their flinch was the beginning of a rapid body motion to grab a weapon or to throw a haymaker punch and kill you … a.k.a. the infamous “furtive movement” justification that we hear so often.

      Because of Philandro Castile, it is now impossible to move, much less reach for anything (especially in a vehicle), without justifying a cop to use deadly force.

      • Uncommon, your comments make a lot of sense. The cop seems to have very rapidly escalated his use of force under circumstances that warranted less aggressive action (such as stepping back; or whatever else cops are trained to do.) The case for arguing “jeopardy” strikes me as weak since the driver revealed he had a CCP and a gun.

        In any case, it’s now perfectly clear that no one confronted by a cop should move his hands in a direction where they will be out-of-sight. And, no hand move should be anything other than conspicuously slow.

        In a traffic-stop context, that means having your DL/Reg/Ins/CCP out before the cop arrives at the window. (We know the drill by now.) I would never want to reach to my back pocket, glove-box or console (or anywhere else) in the cop’s presence. I wouldn’t want to do so even if the cop ORDERED me to so reach.

        We need a new protocol for traffic stops; one that the cops will agree to (if not design). E.g., the driver is expected to pull his paperwork out before the cop gets to the window. If the driver forgets to do so the cop tells the driver that the cop will step back while the driver pulls his paperwork; he will return when he sees the driver’s hands back on the wheel. All drivers need to keep their hands on the wheel (or out the window) at all times.

        All drivers have to recognize that a cop’s reality is that he has a lot of unsatisfied customers in his history; and, in the history of every other cop. His blue uniform and badge might just as well be a target on his back. When we have enough empathy to imagine how our behaviors can be misinterpreted by a cop then we will alter our behaviors to minimize the likelihood of precipitating our getting ourselves shot.

    • Mike Betts,

      And let me tell you another thing: verbal orders from cops which justify use of deadly force are bogus as well. (Orders like, “Don’t reach for it!”) I cannot tell you how many times I have issued a verbal order to people (both young and old) and it doesn’t register in their brains (and translate to body motion to follow the order) until 5 to 10 seconds later. It is so bad and so dependable that I just go “hands on” now.

      Case in point: this last Fourth of July, I was lighting-off a really small “cannon”. I just lit a 5 second fuse and backed off when an 11 year-old girl unexpected started walking toward the “cannon”. I said, “Stop!” to her when I saw her approaching and it had no effect. I actually had to physically restrain her because she would not have stopped in time, if at all. Her brain was struggling to make sense of the entire event until she heard the loud bang.

      So, when a cop yells, “Don’t reach for it!”, they better allow that person at least 5 seconds for their brain to process that speech and tell their hand to stop reaching. And that assumes that the person understand English and is not hearing impaired.

      If police KNOW FOR CERTAIN that a person is a violent criminal who has unequivocally demonstrated that he/she will use unjustified violent/deadly force on others, that is one thing. But treating everyone as a potential violent criminal and viewing every movement as a possible violent action is wrong, period.

      • uncommon_sense – Oh, that cops had the luxury of giving everyone 5 seconds to comply with a lawful order but the fact is that just might get you killed in the first 2 of those 5 seconds. I can recall occasions when I’ve not only told someone not to reach but physically restrained them from reaching under the driver’s seat. On two of those occasions the driver’s wallet was under the seat – and so was his firearm. Which one was he going after? We’ll never know.

        Having the luxury of knowing for certain that someone is a dangerous character necessitating a “felony stop” is a rare event, indeed. Cops make thousands of traffic stops every day and while computers have sped up the time that they can get information, it’s not usually in time before the initial contact. The great majority of the time the officer observes a traffic violation and that’s ALL he knows before making the stop.

        Several hours before I was involved in the shooting I had gone to back up another officer checking out a suspicious person in an apartment building. When I got there the other officer was casually chatting with the man in a hallway, but I noticed that the man had his hands in his coat pockets, a definite no-no a cop should NEVER allow. I reached over and took a firm grip on his right hand in his pocket – and the .32 revolver that the hand was gripping. After we got the guy disarmed and arrested I gave the other guy hell for being that careless because that man could have easily shot both of us. One of those things that we were taught in the police academy was that most times cops are killed doing the “routine” things like making traffic stops, quelling domestic disputes, and doing the other mundane tasks that cops do every day and treating interactions with people you don’t know as mere “routine” can get you killed.

  11. Ehh… the NRA is a political organization, which means they have to be politically pragmatic. Even the most blatant murders by cops will receive no comment from the organization because it would ultimately undermine their (considerable) influence. Quite a few cops are NRA members, or at least NRA supporters. If the NRA were to start criticizing law enforcement (no matter how justified) it would risk alienating the cops who currently support it, either directly or indirectly.

    While this is unfortunate, it’s also the political reality. Folks expecting otherwise are in the same category as people in places like CA who claim the NRA abandoned them because it won’t waste its finite resources fighting a battle that was lost a long time ago. The NRA is a grassroots political organization with a single purpose, and how well it can perform that single purpose is directly tied to how strong/large/active its membership is. Now, it’s certainly worth asking if the NRA SHOULD do so, but then you’re mostly talking about an idealogical strategy vs a pragmatic one. There’s no clear answer to that question, but THAT is why the NRA is so silent on matters involving (alleged) abuses on the part of law enforcement. And that’s really not unreasonable.

  12. When the police arrest or shoot you for breaking unjust laws just remember they are just following orders. Also remember every officer is inherently bias because they are dedicating years of their life towards a pension.

  13. I have no problems with the NRA supporting police, either individually or collectively … unless and until they’ve been proven to be in the wrong. Then I would hope “my” NRA would condemn the wrongdoers, no matter what their position or political viewpoint.

    I think it speaks to the times when much, perhaps most, of the population doesn’t trust the outcome of a trial by jury any more, let alone an investigation by grand jury or the like. Not just this case … there’s also the Florida incident a few years back, for instance, and of course how many more in between. Perhaps that’s a justified reaction, perhaps it’s not; but it does speak to the decreasing trust the public have – on both sides – in our political and civil infrastructure.

    That, more than any political divisiveness, makes me more fearful for the future of the country than anything else.

    • The judicial system is fat and outdated. Comprehensive legal reform is needed, but our politicians are way too intractible to focus on it, the citizenry lack the resolve to force it, and even if we had resolve and statesmen, we’re too divided among ourselves, could never agree on the new system. Another problem is, a lot of peoole think there’s too much lobbying now… well, there’d be a huge influx.

      • “The judicial system is fat and outdated” because the scope of government has expanded greatly. More laws, more lawsuits. More government action on laws; more winners, losers, and violations (both by citizen and government); more lawsuits. I read an article showing that the increase in litigation correlated with the increase in government.

  14. Yup, the NRA handed The Trace a win here. The NRA’s unprincipled pragmatism (to be charitable, usually I just call them fudds) has consequences. They can gag on this. It’s just too bad they gave a blog that’s an enemy to all of us a talking point.

  15. I’m one who is acutely aware of what the ramifications of a modern civil war would look like. I pine for the day, and agitate daily for a Restorative War and the opportunity to destroy the Liberal Terrorists™ who pose an existential threat to our Constitutional Republic. Ironically, I have complete faith in the US military servicemen/woman that on an individual level, will choose the side of freedom. Law enforcement on the other hand, are a terrible wild card, particularly those in federal agencies. I have very little confidence that many of them even have the slightest Intention of honoring their oath to protect the Constitution. I doubt hardly any have ever even read it.

      • This. For anyone to say they pine for war, especially when that war would be every where with no front lines, with brother and sister against brother and sister; with all of the “normally” horrendous atrocities of war; especially against women and children; has never experienced war; or he is a homicidal maniac that longs to release the Dogs of War; so that in the cover of the chaos, he may fulfill all of his evil and blood thirsty visions of torture, rape and murder.

        • I don’t pine for the bloodshed itself. I pine for the decisive and concrete manner in which controversy is ended by bloodshed.

        • Andrew. Does it ever stop the controversy? 1865 ended the war between the states but the butthurt is still strong amongst the supporters of the lost cause.

        • The butthurt continued but that’s a failing of humanity, but the debate was over. The matter had been decided, the only remaining strife was in wrangling people into obeying the resolution.

  16. If the NRA were endorsing, say, former officer Michael Slager, that would be a different story. But the ad is in the context of the ambush-killing of multiple officers that were trying to maintain safety at a peaceful demonstration. They were murdered by someone who eat up all the bullshit put out by BLM and white-guilt ridden media (I think specifically of the morons that put their ‘hands up’ as if Michael Brown ever did) and acted on it. The fact that The Trace considers that ‘divisive’ speaks more about their mentality than anyone else.

    If we want to talk about the NRA’s connections to law enforcement, fine, but let’s not do it in a way to give clicks to these charlatans. We KNOW what their agenda is, and it ain’t personal liberty. They concern-troll about police while doing their best to write more and more laws to create more of such bad interactions in the future.

    • I’ve been blowing the fudd whistle on the NRA for years. I get called ignorant (the autistic screech of the male senior citizen), get called a liberal, told to toe the line, etc. We NRA skeptics were gaining momentum but here we are 2017 the NRA still has the biggest market share and lots of credit for Trump’s win. It was only a matter of time before cracks in the their platform got found and called out by the opposition. It’s not my first choice, but this is the way things have to be, and it’s the fastest path still available to atoning for past sins and moving ahead stronger.

    • “… let’s not do it in a way to give clicks to these charlatans. We KNOW what their agenda is, and it ain’t personal liberty. They concern-troll about police while doing their best to write more and more laws to create more of such bad interactions in the future.”

      I’m not sure if you’re talking about the NRA, BLM, or the Trace. Could you please clarify?

  17. Do you know what?

    I don’t want to be inclusive of thugs, rapists or cop killers. I don’t want those people in my neighborhood, in my community, and I don’t want them in the NRA.

    So the people writing for and reading The Trace can suck it.

    And they’d best stay off of my lawn too.

  18. NRA: National Republican Association. They will do anything, they will back anyone, as long as they get MONEY. That is all they care about, Look at what the head man earns, over $500, 000 a year.

  19. People are asking why the NRA did not support Philando Castile. That is a total red herring and nothing more than a way to control the dialog, and TTAG fell right into it. George Soros would approve of that message.

    The real question is:

    If the NRA was so reflexively and slavishly pro-cop, why didn’t it support the officer in the Castile shooting?

    The NRA didn’t get involved either way because that’s not its job. Period.

  20. Stupid Video. The NRA should not allow such diversions from their core cause. Focus on 2A, and preservation of the same. Don’t pick pet causes like TRUMP or BACKING BLUE. There are organizations that exist just for those causes, let them do their job and you do yours.

    This video, specifically, is ham fisted. The grieving sister states “My Brother Spent 8 Years Protecting those Who Marched Against Him.”

    This type of 100% purposeful mischaracterization is a transparent attempt to further the us vs them narative. We’re all free to disagree with the protest or the protesters, but that doesn’t change the fact that they were marching against police overreach and lack of accountability – not against *THE POLICE*.

    BOOOOO NRA. BOO.

    Not donating to you any more than I am donating to the ACLU. ACLU stands for all our rights, EXCEPT the 2A. So no money for you. NRA just seems to represent the GOP rather than 2A. I won’t donate anymore to them either until Wayne is gone or it demonstrably changes.

    • “The ACLU stands for all of our rights, except the second amendment”.
      That is funny! The ACLU is ultimately the enemy of all of our civil liberties and of our constitution.

      The ACLU was established by communists to push the communist agenda. This is why they don’t defend the second amendment, because the ruling communists in positions of power don’t want the masses to be armed and be able to resist their desire for total control of those masses. This is also why they attack Christians ability to practice our religion. Christianity is one of the prime barriers to the communists agenda of total societal destruction; to be replaced by the communist control structure.

      The NRA, on the other hand, was begun as a club to promote gun marksmenship. They later evolved to defend the second amendment from the communist/progressive agenda, led by the ACLU and other communist organizations, to disarm the people.

      • “The ACLU was established by communists to push the communist agenda. This is why they don’t defend the second amendment, because the ruling communists in positions of power don’t want the masses to be armed and be able to resist their desire for total control of those masses.”

        Are you arguing that communists somehow love the 1st amendment?

        “This is also why they attack Christians ability to practice our religion.”

        I did not realize how repressed Christians were in this country, especially relative to other groups.

        • “Are you arguing that communists somehow love the 1st amendment?”
          Like any war on a society or culture, you use the tools available to support the effort, the 1st amendment is a very good one for that.

          “I did not realize how repressed Christians were in this country, especially relative to other groups.” Of course not, because your are not a white, christian, heterosexual, gun toting male. We are the one demographic that is the one group that everyone is free to vilify with some the worst characterizations and dehumanizing verbal and written attacks that would never be allowed against any other racial or ethnic group. Even to where President Obama, the leader of all americans at that time, could call us “Bitter clingers” to our guns and religion: and not be castigated by the media for such a vile depiction.

          You can deny the agenda of attacking and destroying the traditional american freedoms and constitution by the communist/progressives all you want, one of which is by the ACLU. But history has shown that Mccarthy was right. The “obviousness of the Truth” has become so obvious, only those truly in denial can not see it, or you are one working to fulfill the agenda.

        • That was a bit of a bait and switch there, you went from talking about the repression ‘Christians’ as a group to the exponentially more specific – ‘white, christian, heterosexual, gun toting male.’…. LOL… not even in the same universe there.

          “But history has shown that Mccarthy was right.”

          He was a jack booted thug. I am neither communist nor progressive, but neither are illegal. Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association are all things I hold dear – and I don’t think McCarthy nor his tactics demonstrate he respected any of these things.

          In fact, I really only care about 2a because of the other freedoms I mentioned, to ensure I have them. McCarthy was more communist than those he sought to repress, there’s nothing more ‘Repressive Statist Dictatorial’ than to want to punish people for their thoughts and associations.

          But Hey, Keep a Eye out for that Commie. Nothing worse than people who disagree with us. Can’t have people thinking what they want. We need to stomp that out as soon as possible. We should make it illegal to disagree!

        • Wow Yada. I did a “Bait and switch”?. More like you did. You asked how Christians are repressed, I answered it. If you look at the demographics, the vast majority of Christians fit within what I described. If you were to ask most people, especially progressives, to describe the “typical” christian, they would answer with the same main points. Go to any university and declare publicly that you are a Christrian that wants to carry a gun on campus and voted for Trump, and see what physical violence from the professors and student body ensues. And the main stream press would applaud. So, yes, Christians in this country are one of the most repressed of any groups.

          Mccarthy was a thug? He was pointing out the cancer of communist infiltration of our universities, in the press and the entertainment industry. He was the one to be vilified for pointing out this basic truth. We only have to look at the very openly communist/progressive domination of our schools, universities, media today. This did not happen in a vacuum. Vladimir Lenin said it very clearly, “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”
          Communists secretly dominated our schools for the last pretty much hundred years, now they are in the open, and we see the results of this cancer. Like I said, Mccarthy was right.

          “We should make it illegal to disagree!” It is actually the progressives that have tried to make it illegal to disagree through hate speech laws. And when that does not work, they will riot and throw bricks and punch a person they disagree with in the face. And if that doesn’t work, they will take a rifle and go and try to murder a bunch of Republicans. So it is time to look in the mirror Yada, do you support progressive facism, and violence against those they disagree with, or do you support freedom of thought, of speech and freedom to KABA? Because if we have it the “progressive” way, freedom will be gone replaced with the worst blood bath and tyranny we have ever seen, in this country.

        • “If you look at the demographics, the vast majority of Christians fit within what I described.”

          “white, christian, heterosexual, gun toting male”

          So you’re saying that more than 51% of Christians are… White, Heterosexual Gun Toting Males.. and that demographics support this claim?

          Yea. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Please link me, because this is quite literally unbelievable.

          But to the point, yes it was a bait an switch. First you said it was Christians were suppressed, no additional qualifiers, then you tacked on all kinds of other defining characteristics that were clearly groups that are often marginalized such as males and pro 2a, trying to justify the claim that ‘Christians’ are repressed. Even later you added ‘Trump Voter’ to your list. I still don’t see how you can think that ‘Christians’ are repressed… as a group that stands by itself. That was the claim. I will just say it, this claim is absurd. Christians are a very strong group in America, have a tremendous voice, have tremendous political clout and to claim they are repressed is laughable.

          “Mccarthy was a thug? He was pointing out the cancer of communist infiltration of our universities, in the press and the entertainment industry. He was the one to be vilified for pointing out this basic truth.”

          No he wasn’t vilified for pointing out that progressive and communist ideas were circulating, he was vilified for trying to suppress freedom of thought and association by trying to, as a government agent, punish those that had such thoughts for simply having the thoughts. Are people free to think what they want or not? How can you support McCarthy if you support freedom of thought?

          It’s one thing to point out certain political / social ideals exists, it’s another thing entirely to try to systematically ruin the lives of those that have such thoughts or ideals.

        • Sigh. Alright Yada. Let’s do this again. Are Christians the most repressed groups in this country? Yes. Does this mean that they don’t have power or influence? Of course not. Jews were very hated and repressed in different countries they inhabited, even though they had power and influence. Now If you want to say that I am doing a bait and switch by breaking down WHY Christians are the most hated and repressed group, that is your prerogative, but that does not make it so. And yeah, you are correct. Saying that more than 50% of Christian’s are “gun toting” would be incorrect.

          So lets do a summary. Christians are hated because as a group, they represent the compilation of all the bogeymen that the progressives teach need to be hated; white, because being white means “white privilege”, which makes a white person automatically racist; heterosexual, if you do not support without question the “alternative sexual” lifestyle; Male-because of “patriarchy”; gun owner- because gunz, and the most horrendous bogeyman-CHRISTIAN.

          Now this repression is shown by the common portrayal of Chrisitians as being cowardly, or hateful, of bigoted and racist in movies and TV shows. This would never be allowed for any other demographic. Also the progressive movement to deny the ability of Christians to practice their faith except in private, and yet the push and indoctrination of our children and the public in the progressive ideology, which should be designated as a religious belief, is society wide.

          So in school, our children are bombarded by liberal/progressive ideology with it’s embracing of humanism, and the introduction of eastern mysticism and religious practice like yoga or meditation, along with a denial of the practice of our Christian heritage and faith. So we are free to only to practice in public the progressive ideology and that I would also call repression.

          As for Mccarthy, he was part of a government panel to root out communist infiltration in our society. This cancer was not exposed because those practicing this evil ideology hid this fact from the public. He was not castigated for trying to root out communists, he was vilified for the fact that the communists lied about their beliefs, and defended by those secret communists in the media and in government, to where it seemed Mccarthy was creating a witch hunt, with no reality to his accusations. If they had been honest in their ideology, the public would have been in total agreement that they should be fired and never hold a position of influence, especially in academia, the media or government.

        • Brother you really can sling the bull crap. Lets pick apart your diatribe with a little historical fact not the fantasies you are engaging in.

          quote—————–

          Sigh. Alright Yada. Let’s do this again. Are Christians the most repressed groups in this country? Yes. ————-.Quote

          Brother this one really takes the cake. The real facts are that for too long Christians have boldly discriminated against all other religions in the U.S. including even Catholics who they regard as corrupted Christians. Funny since Catholicism predated Protestantism.

          Christians even have been successful or in other instances tried to be when they prevented other religions from erecting their churches in their neighborhoods. And Busch during the last Presidential campaign proclaimed that Christians from Middle East Countries should be allowed in because they were not a danger and that it was only they that were being persecuted, but all Muslims were not being persecuted and were all a danger so they should all be prohibited.

          During WWII it was the dominating Christian hateful fanatics that prevented a large ship load of Jews from embarking when docked in the U.S. and they sent them back to the gas chambers of Germany and many Christians to this day claim it was the right thing to do.

          Quote————Also the progressive movement to deny the ability of Christians to practice their faith except in private, and yet the push and indoctrination of our children and the public in the progressive ideology, which should be designated as a religious belief, is society wide. ————Quote.

          Here we are in agreement. Yes the Christians have been prohibited (most of the time and should be) from forcing their religion down other peoples throats at public buildings during Christian holidays when people must by law frequent those public buildings to complete required governmental law. During other times posting the Ten Commandments in Public Buildings is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. People who are non-Christian or just plain agnostic or atheistic certainly should not be made to feel like second class citizens by having the Christian religion shoved down their throats even on non holidays. Holidays were bad enough but 365 days a year is an obscene violation of the Constitution.

          Its interesting to note that the Christian fanatics scream the U.S. was founded on Christianity but they have obviously never read the actual writings of the founding Fathers often who often sounded way more like outright Atheists than the fantasy belief by Christians that the founding Fathers were all church going zealots,, other wise they never would have separated church and state. If the Founding Fathers were alive today they would fit right I with the progressives at least in regards to the tyranny of Christian fanatics.

          Its ironic to note that Islam, long the boogey man of Christianity (especially when it was the Crusaders that were the ones masquerading as Christians when as previously unemployed mercenaries they invaded the Middle East for rape, pillage and conquest under the excuse of “saving the holy land”) actually where and still are the mirror image of Islamic extremists. Both religious groups are radical right wing, both hate all other religions, both are out to destroy all other religions, both want laws past making it mandatory to belong to their respective religions, both are bigoted, both are hateful, both are racist and both are xenophobic and both claim to be the one true religion of all mankind.

          Little do these Morons of both religions realize neither religion would be in existence today if both had not borrowed heavily on more ancient religions that they often copied verbatim. No, their religions were not handed down by any man god like Mohammed or Christ but rather were an accumulated set of beliefs from far older religions all blended into a new one now claiming to be unique and having no connection to the past whatsoever. What a crock.

          No, you are not being prosecuted, that fantasy is one that gives you religious fervor but in reality you are simply being told to stay the hell out of every one else’s lives. You have every right in private and in church to go into prayer, ritual and incantations by the light of the moon but keep it the hell out of my back yard or the public buildings I am required by law to frequent or in public schools trying to force your beliefs down the throats of other peoples children who are not Christian and want nothing to do with it. Now that is “real persecution” the persecution of the right wing radical Christians trying to destroy everyone else’s right to privacy or religious freedom or the freedom from religion altogether.

        • to Thomas R.

          I hate to deflate your fantasy balloon in regards to your commie paranoia but Communism went out with the death of Stalin Decades ago. Ditto for pure Capitalism as well as Capitalism was the incarnation of pure evil as history has proven as it was and is based on nothing more than blind greed. And by the way to eradicate your own ignorance Communism is not a form of government but rather an economic system that was a failure just as pure Capitalism was and is a total failure. Rather all industrialized nations have long ago gone to “progressive socialism” to one degree or another, including the U.S. but you live in myopic fantasy world which denies decades of reality both economic and political. We have dictatorships in South America originally based on Capitalism and we have democracies in Europe based on Socialism. Quit confusing economic systems with political systems even though they can and often do influence and work together.

          Its no accident that every Industrialized nation in the world went over to progressive socialism, its the only fair system that prevents on one hand the greed monger Capitalists from hogging all the wealth and on the other hand the Communist system that prevents people from making a profit in business. Get with historic realityas your world ceased to exist decades ago and it did not come any too soon.

          And I forgot to mention in regards to your glorification of “Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy” that he was declared even by Republicans a sociopath and psychopath who was none too soon exposed and discredited and censured and his career as a Politician righty went down in flames. Too bad the Germans did not end it sooner in WWII as it would have prevented the bastard from ruining so many innocent lives. In the end good won out over evil which proved you cannot lie and ruin innocent peoples lives without it eventually catching up too you and destroying you. Since you claim to be a religious man its amazing you blaspheme your own dogma but hey is that not the way of all religious fanatics they live to blaspheme their own beliefs.

        • ThomasR:

          With all the repression, groups that are after those you identify with combined with the commies that are, apparently, everywhere ready to spring on you…. you may want to get one of those thunder vests.

          LOL @

          “If they had been honest in their ideology, the public would have been in total agreement that they should be fired and never hold a position of influence, especially in academia, the media or government.”

          Speak for yourself. I hold the freedom of thought, association and speech as dearly, if not more, than the 2A. Why do you hate freedom, sir? Why do you wish to suppress and punish those that don’t have thoughts that do not align with your own? Why do you cherry pick from the BoR and single out 2A as a right worth defending but decidedly throw away 1A and the Freedom of Thought and Association?

        • I hate freedom Yada? For you to accuse me of that is called transference. The ones that have proven their hatred of freedom of speech and our freedom to keep and bear arms, among just some of the most important civil rights, are the regressives. The root of their desire for absolute control is based in communism. The fact that you make fun of that fact in the end shows where your sympathy lies. I will under line lies. Because that is what progressivism is based upon.

          I don’t have any desire to outlaw communism. But I have no problem with shunning of and the public contempt of anyone that professes to support communism and all if it’s spawn, such as progressivism. So just as we don’t need to outlaw those that want to promote Nazism, I also have no problem with not hiring a Nazi to work for me, or to hire them to work in schools teaching our children or working in the military, the police or in any government position.

          Because the difference between Nazi’s and what we have come to see of progressives is a matter of better PR.

        • “I don’t have any desire to outlaw communism.”

          “or to hire them to work in schools teaching our children or working in the military, the police or in any government position.”

          You’re very confused about what freedom is, sir. When the government can punish you for something, you lack the freedom to do it.

          You have stated repeatedly you here that you do not agree with 1A, Freedom of Though, Freedom of Association, by saying you wish to have policies which have consequences for those that don’t think like you.

          So I will ask again, sir, why do you hate freedom?

        • You have got it all in reverse. For far too many years it was Christians who rammed their religion down everyone else’s throats by placing the ten commandments or their religious pictures in public buildings where the general public of many other religions were required to be there because of business that was required of them. The Christians rammed their religion down the throats of children in public schools that often were members of other faiths. All this was a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Its only recently that all this has been put much to and end and none to soon either.

          As far as Communists trying to end your religion your living in the past. In Russia after the death of Stalin the Government gave up on trying to suppress religion as it simply went underground and the people refused to comply and the government lost face. Today in Russia churches are again once open and in China their are 70 million openly practicing Christians. I know Christians get an orgasm when they get to pretend their being persecuted but that went out with the Romans feeding them to the lions, its just too bad they did not feed all of them to the lions back then as we would not have to keep slamming the door in their face when they come around wanting you to give them your money to be given to the head minister so he can drive expensive cars, live in luxurious homes hand have two or three teenage mistresses besides his wife.

          Give us all a break on your being persecuted and go watch the old movies Demetrius and the Gladiators if you want to fantasize in religious persecution or Charles Heston in the “Ten Commandments”.

      • The ACLU was founded in 1920 as a reaction to WW1 and the Sedition Act, to support free speech by war protesters.

        It was founded by a group including pacifists, a future Supreme Court Justice, suffragettes, an anti-Communist who was a fan of J. Edgar Hoover, and yes a Communist labor leader who died on a trip to the USSR. All of them were anti-militarists.

        It was not founded to be Red, although it might be so today.

        • Perhaps Ralph, whether they were controlled by communists or were sympathetic to communism at the beginning is debatable; but what they are now is obvious. The proof is in the pudding. They are enemies of freedom and of our constitution, because they do not defend the second amendment as being an individual right. They have long held that despite the fact that all of our civil rights were written as individual rights, they have promoted the idea that the 2nd was different, that it was a collective right. To me, only an authoritarian, elitist and totalitarian basis of ideology could promote such an idea.

          This alone, shows to me that the ACLU is an enemy to our freedoms and civil rights if they make the last avenue of resistance to an authoritarian government, the right to KABA, a government controlled privilege.

    • There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the BLM movement is against the police. “Pigs in a blanket, fry’em like bacon.” “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” These are two quotes from separate BLM organized events. BLM persists with the Michael Brown “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative, which is a known lie.

  21. I’ll just do my best to stay out of confrontations with law officers and while it maybe unpleasant to play nice with a jerk it’s not as bad as dead.

  22. The NRA video is “divisive”… as is “Schindler’s List”.

    Anybody who DOESN’T feel “divided” from Nazis, Black Lies Matter and the [so-called] “Anti-fa” is a sociopath.

  23. Am I understanding the story correctly? BLM, a group trying to divide (and presumably conquer) society along racial lines is calling the actions of another group divisive?

    • No Herr Hauptman (wannabe gas chamber attendant) BLM is pointing out that the mass murder by Cops of Minorities must stop through better training and holding Cops accountable for murder when they get off even with horrific video’s documenting the cold blooded murders. If BLM was demonstrating because the cops had just gunned down one of your white relatives you would be praising them or maybe not, your hate may be even deeper than I have so far observed.

      You once ran off at the mouth when I mentioned that German Cops only killed 12 people in 2015 while the U.S. Jack Booted Storm Troopers slaughtered a horrific 1,500 people. You claimed a difference in population not even bothering to do the math between the two countries or totally ignoring the fact that China with a much more massive population only shot and killed just 4 people.

      You never miss a chance to denigrate minorities (especially Blacks), refugees or immigrants. Congrats I bestow on you the “Medal of Right Wing Radical Fanatics”. By the way you should dust off your portraits of Adolf H and George Lincoln Rockwell and David Duke, they are getting a little dusty.

      Any by the way if you would take off your hate fogged blinders you would have seen plenty of news coverage showing white people marching right along side of black people in the protesting of mass murder by cops in the U.S.

      • Well crisco kid if cops didn’t use your beloved 9mm that easily pierces steel at 125 yards maybe cops wouldn’t kill so many bystanders by mistake. I know you learned that at your democrat only gun club where you’ve been an NRA member since 1952😂😂😂. Quick, without using google, tell me who was president in 1952? Who of each party ran for president in that year? It’s so easy to see right through your huffpo bullshit dude.

        • The test included full metal jacketed military ammo. And yes the Cops are well aware of the over penetration of 9mm ammo that is just one of the reasons they do not use it. Since you are not aware of it the cops do not use such ammo but rather expanding ammo which is designed to mushroom out and not over penetrate if the proper bullet weight is used and the proper velocity is adhered to. The cops are way ahead of you on that one.

          As far as your accusing me of lying about my age you had better watch your big mouth as you could end losing a lot of money. If you wish we could have our lawyers put 5,000 each in escrow and if I can prove my age then the money is then all mine and I assure you I have plenty of documentation to verify my age. I really would like the money so let me know. And by the way genius your reading comprehension is really low. I stated that I was an NRA member since the 1960’s not the 1950’s although I was reading my uncle’s American Rifleman magazines back in the 50’s but was still a kid and could not afford the subscription until I got into High School and had a job working which was the early 1960’s. I was a freshman in 1962 and had my draft card in 1968 just another way to verify my age without even half trying, the military will back me up on that one. Not that I need them to do it but it would be fun to have them in on it as well.

          I find the far rights ignorance on gun ownership almost unbelievable. I have know people from all walks of life and all political persuasions that own guns. Not all agree which type of guns we should be allowed to have but even the deep bass voice of the fellow on cable that hosts Shooting USA almost lost his job permanently when he bad mouthed the ownership of semi-auto rifles and even pistols several years ago and he is as right wing as it gets. He only believes in carrying a revolver. Again trying to put all gun owners in one category who all agree and march in lock step is about as ignorant as you can get. And yes there are plenty of Democrats, Liberals, Independents etc that own guns and there have been Republicans as anti-gun as Dianne Feinstein who is a Democrat and about as anti-gun as you can get. And remember it was your Republican God Reagan who hated full auto guns and banned them permanently and when George Bush was called upon by the NRA for help in defeating anti-gun legislation he thumbed his nose at the NRA. You are aware I hope that he was a Republican too. You would know all that if you had been an NRA member. Or how about the Mr. Ballou case, again if you had been an NRA member long ago you would know who he was and what happened to him as well. Now quick without googling it do you know who he was, I bet not either because you are too young or because you were too cheep all these years to be an NRA member.

        • Uh oh I certainly triggered you crisco kid! What you gonna give me the CNN treatment now because your such fake news!? I’m glad I upset you so much.

      • Adolf Hitler and David Duke were of the left. If you can’t get these simples truths straight, I can dismiss the rest of your pubile scribbling, as it is undoubtably devoid of fact and intelligent analysis. Nice try though…well not really. Just more of the same silliness.

        • You had better go back to school genius you just made a laughing stock of yourself. By the way David Duke is still alive last time I checked and if you accused him of being left wing you would be lucky not to have your teeth punched out. Duke in an avowed racist and makes no bones about it and never has. He has stated equivalently he believes in white power just as Hitler did. He hates black people just as Hitler did. Are you familiar with the Munich Olympics and what happened there with Hitler and Jessie Owens, obviously not.

          Adolf Hitler’s major excuse for attacking Russia was two fold. One: the Germans needed more living space and Two: he was fighting the far left communists in the streets of Germany when he came to power. He blamed the far left for being in direct contact with Uncle Joe (if you even know who he was) and he was mostly right. HIs followers regarded the war with Russia as almost a religious crusade and other far right fanatics from many European countries volunteered to fight with him under the banner of his “foreign legions”. Hardly what a left wing group would have ever done.

          The KKK’s star poster boy has always been Adolf H , why do you thing the far right KKK wave the Nazi flag at rally’s. If you accused the KKK of being far left you would not live very long. Hitler like most right wing fanatics believed in super nationalism, racism and xenophobia, all the hall mark of the fanatical far right down to this very day. He was your kind of hero.

        • I don’t know where the KKK falls on the political spectrum because I don’t care to know. I know their main issue is being anti-black. That being said, I can’t think of a truly conservative/right leaning organization built and/or founded around the premise of racism, but I can think of plenty on the left. Planned Parenthood, Nazis, and BLM are examples.

        • LOL Who the frack knew that Planned Parenthood was founded around Racist principles.

          Holy crap there is some insane spin in here.

        • One of Margaret Sanger’s, the founder of Planned Parenthood, chief goals was the “extermination of the negro race” and other undesirables. The Nazi party got a lot of its ideas from the American eugenics movement.

        • This is too easy I can just say nothing and let you go on making an absolute fool out of yourself in front of the general population who is well aware of David Dukes politics and Adolf Hitlers as well. As far as Hitler there has been enough written on his Politics to fill the Grand Canyon. Your making an absolute fool out of yourself

  24. In the long run, picking a fight (any fight) with cops would allow the anti’s (and its minions in the media) to portray gun owners as lawless crazies.

    Sometimes, their silence on topics says enough.

  25. Not so long ago Wayne LaPierre called the cops “jack booted thugs” and the political fallout was immense culminating even in its star member President Bush tearing up his NRA card. Now the NRA is bowing and scraping to cops pretending they can do no wrong and never have done anything wrong. Since the bulk of the NRA members have traditionally been from lower class uneducated whites, losing any black members over outright cold blooded murders, even those legally carrying guns is a non issue to the NRA.

    I might add Castile was not the only black murdered by police who was legally carrying a gun. Not so long ago a Black Man was shopping with his girl friend and was spotted carrying a concealed handgun by a female store clerk who panicked and called police who promptly laid a trap for him and gunned him down as he emerged from the store without any warning. Of course no cop was ever charged with anything as their standard excuse is “I feared for my life because I am a paranoid dim wit with only a few hours training”. Case closed.

    • Not trying to wade into the debate here, but just a point to clarify…

      Noting, up front, this comes at the risk that I am somehow trying to justify what occurred… I AM NOT.

      You said Castille was a legally carrying a gun. Was he? I thought I read he was a user of Marijuana. If so, doesn’t that disqualify him?

      • The autopsy report confirmed the presence of THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) in Castile’s system. As I recall, Castile did have CCW license. You don’t suppose he might have lied on his application about his marijuana use, to you?

      • No mention to my knowledge was made that he was doing anything illegal and even if it was what bearing does that have on what happened. It was only the far right that was screaming he was high when there was no documented evidence that he was when stopped and even if he was high do the Cops have the right to execute people because they are reacting slowly from intoxication by either alcohol or weed? He exhibited no aggressive behavior at all and the idiot cop should have known that if he had wanted to shoot the cop he certainly would not have told the cop he had a gun on him. The Far Right looked for every imaginable excuse to give the cop and used every imaginable theory to denigrate Castille simply because he was black. Facts are facts, this Moron should never have been a cop and probably would never even passed a training course if he had been given a professional training course, which he obviously did not get as is the standard procedure in the U.S. unlike other civilized West European Countries. Yes he got off Scott Free as all cops do when they gun someone down.

        • Not arguing with you about the case, we don’t disagree.

          But, if he was a user of marijuana, his possession of the gun was illegal. By stating he was legally carrying, you are diminishing the rest of your arguments because it is factually incorrect.

          And…. likely missing an important reason why the NRA, even though I am no fan, isn’t going out of their way on this case. It’s a mine field for them, no matter how they feel. The Anti-2A groups would seize upon the NRA defending a person who was illegally in possession of a gun – not a characterization the NRA can afford.

          Better to let other, non-2A focused, advocacy organizations step out front on this one.

        • Quote——————–But, if he was a user of marijuana, his possession of the gun was illegal. By stating he was legally carrying, you are diminishing the rest of your arguments because it is factually incorrect. ————–Quote

          You are assuming that it was not legal for him to have weed. Laws vary from State to State and even if the Feds say you could not have a gun that does not give the State Trooper or Cop a right to take his gun because if it was State legal then he did have a right according to State Law. Also at the time he was stopped he had a legal carry card, at that point the Cop could have confiscated his gun and his card and Castille still could have went to court to get both back. In other words people are not guilty unless a court determines such. The Cop is not legally Judge , Jury and in this case executioner. Cops confiscate illegal guns and legal weapons and carry cards all the time, but few cops execute people on the spot just because they legally or illegally had a gun at the time of the stop, especially when the stopped person tells the cop first that he has a gun before the cop even asked him if he had a weapon.

          I think any reasonable person would agree and if the courts were not so corrupt at making it impossible to convict a cop of a shooting the jury would have had the leeway to convict the cop of murder. As the court system stands now cops are given free reign to kill anyone at any time for any reason and for no reason and know the courts cannot touch them as far as being convicted of wanton murder. 1,500 people being gunned down in 2015 certainly proves it beyond any doubt whatsoever. How many went to jail for murder out of the 1,500 killings, answer none.

          It has gotten to the point where the majority of Western European people are afraid to vacation in the U.S. and many are refusing to let their children even come here for an education. If I was European I would certainly not come here or send my kids here to school.

        • Cisco kid just gave the textbook argument in favor of “sanctuary cities”. There may be a federal law, but the state may have a different law..
          Unfortunately for him, that doesn’t apply to this case. Under state law, carrying a firearm while under the influence is illegal–not merely stupid.

        • Crisco kid your such fake news. Why don’t you try posting under some different names again.

      • Federal law is supreme, and his use of marijuana under federal law is illegal and therefore so was his possession of the firearm regardless of what state he was in or what their laws were.

        That’s the reality of that part of the situation.

        • Except the federal marijuana law is invalid: the Constitution grants no authority to regulate what people choose to put in their own bodies.

          In a just world, any federal agent making an arrest for drugs would be tarred and feathered and run out of town in a cheap packing crate.

        • Roymond – I would suggest that you read the 18th Amendment. Granted, it was later repealed by the 21st, but for 13 years the government told you what you could NOT put in your body.

        • Exactly: the federal marijuana law is invalid: the Constitution grants no authority to regulate what people choose to put in their own bodies.

        • Let’s try that again. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (AKA: the Volstead Act) prohibited Americans drinking alcohol except under medical supervision. The production of alcohol was prohibited unless under government-controlled circumstances. This was the constitutional Law of the Land from 1920 to 1933, until the passage of the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment. In short, the Constitution CAN tell you what you can put in your body and did so for 13 years. Is that clear to you now?

        • Very clear — you just supported what I said: the federal marijuana law is invalid: the Constitution grants no authority to regulate what people choose to put in their own bodies.

          Though you’re actually wrong about that: the Constitution has NEVER granted the federal government the authority to tell Americans what they can put in their bodies; it only barred “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors”.

        • Have it your way, Roymond. When verifiable history and logical argument fail, I have nothing left to offer.

        • Verifiable history shows you are WRONG: the Constitution has never given the federal government authority over what people put in their bodies.

        • I don’t disagree with the sentiment.

          However, when were talking about the scope of this person’s recognized legal status of possession of that firearm at the time of the incident – it was in fact recognized as illegal.

        • Nope not an accurate statement. If it was then the Feds would have arrested State Law Makers, people on medical weed and people buying and growing weed in States where it is legal. That has not happened so the gun issue should be no different. In other words the feds could have arrested Castell but legally not the State or local Police so therefore his permit was valid and still is even though he is dead. No charges were brought against the woman in the car by even the Feds for having weed in her car either. There is a good reason for that because if the Feds had arrested her they would have had to arrest thousands in all States were it is legal to grow or use it.

        • “Nope not an accurate statement. If it was then the Feds would have arrested State Law Makers, people on medical weed and people buying and growing weed in States where it is legal. That has not happened so the gun issue should be no different. In other words the feds could have arrested Castell but legally not the State or local Police so therefore his permit was valid and still is even though he is dead. No charges were brought against the woman in the car by even the Feds for having weed in her car either. There is a good reason for that because if the Feds had arrested her they would have had to arrest thousands in all States were it is legal to grow or use it.”

          You can’t arrest a dead body.The fact is, under federal law, which applies everywhere in the 50 states – you are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm if you are a user of illegal drugs including marijuana.

          If it was known that PC was both a user of marijuana and possessed a firearm prior to his death, any law enforcement officer in any state could have arrested him for that. That’s a fact.

          Anyone growing, possessing, etc marijuana in any state can also be arrested at any time by a federal agent. It is true they are not actively doing so, but they can at any time. It’s still illegal.

        • I did a little research and it is a violation of Minnesota law to carry a firearm when you are under the influence of drugs or if you have a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) above .04. Castile’s autopsy results were that he had THC in his system, therefore he was in violation of Minnesota law and subject to arrest by a state or local officer.

        • Just because he had THC in his system does not mean that he was under the influence. That is definitely the case in Texas. I’m not sure how it would work out in MN. You would probably have to go to case law to define “under the influence.”

          As an example of what I’m talking about, Texas defines intoxicated as “not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or (B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more” for the purposes of “CHAPTER 49. INTOXICATION AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OFFENSES.” In other statutes (there are at least 81), intoxicated is defined by reference to Chapter 49, defined differently, or not defined at all. The carry statute is an example of it not being defined. The workers compensation statute is an example of a slightly, but significantly, different definition. The workers comp definition is both broader and narrower than the Chapter 49 definition.

        • While Castile’s post mortem indicated THC was present in his system, the relevant Minnesota statute doesn’t specify what amount would constitute a presumption of impairment, while the alcohol provisions of the statute do. Interestingly, there are two degrees of impairment by alcohol, one of .10 BAC and above and another of less than .10 but of .04 or above, with the former likely being subject to more severe penalties. Frankly, I don’t know if there even IS a legal presumption of impairment by measurement of the amount of THC in someone’s system ANYWHERE. I suspect that since no apparent standard presumption for THC impairment exists (of which I’m aware. anyway) it was the intention of the various legislatures that ANY amount of THC or other drug constituted a violation. Of course, that makes any charge of carrying a firearm or driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs entirely subjective. Interesting, isn’t it?

        • The workers comp statute I referenced states that the presence of certain substances leads to the rebuttable presumption that the person is intoxicated. Since legislatures know how to do this, I would argue that presence does not mean intoxication.

        • As I noted, the determination of intoxication by drugs is, as far as I know, entirely subjective based upon the person’s appearance and conduct with perhaps a few other factors thrown in for good measure. For alcohol intoxication, pretty much all states have hewed to the federal standard of a .08 BAC as being presumptive confirmation of alcohol intoxication when operating a motor vehicle. Are you aware of any such presumption of intoxication by the amount of THC the person has in his system?

        • I have read that some states have presumptions of intoxication for marijuana. Texas doesn’t in Chapter 49 contexts. The worker’s comp one might categorize marijuana as one of the “any of these substances listed elsewhere” part of the definition.

      • It was illegal under 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(3) for Castile (or any “an unlawful user of” marijuana”) “to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”

        “even if it was what bearing does that have on what happened.” That is a good point and your response “if he was a user of marijuana, his possession of the gun was illegal. By stating he was legally carrying, you are diminishing the rest of your arguments because it is factually incorrect” is correct. The people claiming Castile was a legal carrier are the ones bringing up an irrelevant point that is also false.

        Any point about Federalism, the authority of the Feds to regulate marijuana, or the Feds actual enforcement of a law in response to your initial question are ignorant at best. Maybe the Feds shouldn’t be able to override the will of the state as to any or some of this, maybe the Feds shouldn’t be able to do whatever Mike and Roymond were arguing about, and so what if the Feds haven’t been enforcing a law? None of that matters to your question of whether Castile was carrying legally/illegally because he was a user of marijuana.

        He was not carrying legally under the system of laws we have. Maybe we should have a different system. That is a different and distinct argument.

        • Sir, I believe you were somewhat barking up the wrong tree. Under Minnesota Statute 624.7142 “CARRYING WHILE UNDER INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE”, Castile was in violation of the statute because he was “knowingly under the influence of any chemical compound or combination of chemical compounds that is listed as a hazardous substance in rules adopted under section 182.655 and that affects the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the person so as to impair the person’s clearness of intellect or physical control;” while carrying a firearm. It also prohibits carry when the carrier’s BAC is above .04. My reading of several other Minnesota statutes gives me the impression that conviction of a elucidated crimes will most certainly result in revocation of a carry permit. Here’s a link to the relevant statute.: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.7142

          Also, I must issue a most humble apology to Roymond; you are right and I was wrong. While the INTENT of Prohibition was to force Americans from drinking, it did not proscribe the possession of alcohol by individuals. I stand corrected.

        • There’s more than one way to skin a cat. If Castile was under the influence and that made it illegal for him to carry under state law, then he wasn’t carrying legally. If he wasn’t allowed to possess a firearm under federal law, then he wasn’t carrying legally.

        • I must respectfully demur. Castile had a valid carry permit at the time of the incident. Unless/until he was charged and convicted of an offense which would disqualify him and result in revocation of his permit, he was legally carrying the firearm. Of course, his demise rendered any such entirely moot.

        • If Castile was under the influence, he was carrying in violation of the law, i.e., he was not carrying lawfully. It doesn’t matter if his permit was valid. It’s a crime for which he could have been convicted. If what you are doing is lawful, it cannot be a crime.

          If it was illegal for him to possess a firearm (it was), then he was carrying violation of the law. He was not carrying lawfully. It doesn’t matter if he had a valid permit.

          It’s like saying that it’s not illegal to carry at a post office if you have a chl. It is. If you were carrying at a post office, you would not be lawfully carrying.

          If what you are saying is “innocent until proven guilty,” that’s one thing. If you are saying that what he did wasn’t illegal because he wasn’t convicted, then I am profoundly confused by your logic.

        • Exactly. I’m a “due process” advocate besides being a “law and order” type. I’d have had no problem whatsoever with the traffic stop culminating with Castile being arrested for violation of the Minnesota statutes for both operating a motor vehicle and carrying a firearm while under the influence of drugs, being tried, and upon conviction having his carry permit administratively revoked.

        • Ok, I get that you’re not willing to say someone did something until they are convicted. However, not saying he was carrying illegally is not the same thing as saying he was carrying legally. One is reserving judgment until a conviction (which will never happen as he is dead). The other is saying something that is demonstrably false.

          As I am not a state actor or juror, I don’t need any government process before I make up my mind as to whether or not a fact is true and apply the law to that fact. The way I see it is that Castile was a prohibited person under federal law (18 usc 922(g)(3)) because I saw him smoking marijuana in a video his girlfriend posted on the internet, and he had THC in his system when he died. As a prohibited person, it was unlawful for him to carry. As it was unlawful for him to carry, he was not carrying lawfully.

  26. qu0te————-Though you’re actually wrong about that: the Constitution has NEVER granted the federal government the authority to tell Americans what they can put in their bodies; it only barred “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors”.——————-quote

    Mike , Mr. Roymand is correct but lets take it farther than that. it really does not matter what the Constitution says because its the Courts that give you your rights not the Constitution it never has and the Courts shit on the Constitution with a myriad of excuses that even a naïve 6 year old could see through.

    Its interesting to note that Prohibition ended not because of some lofty Constitutional ideal or right but rather it ended because of Government , State, Local and Federal blind greed over loss of tax revenue on liquor sales. When the underworld started making millions and the Governments nothing it was a loss to their pockets that they filled with graft and corruption through the outright theft of the taxes they were once stealing.

    As a side bar although Prohibition was not 100 per cent successful because the very rich bought all the booze they wanted Prohibition did for the most part actually work as it was leveled mostly at the lower and naturally more numerous working class people. Why? Booze became so expensive to the working man that he substituted much less powerful beer and social studies done during that era showed that wife beatings, child abuse and absenteeism from work and even auto accidents went way down proving prohibition for the most part did work its just that the blind greed of the people in government killed prohibition at the expense of the welfare of the public who went right back to boozing it up with cheap hard liquor and all the social ills it had previously condemned society to.

    All that today is immaterial as today due to low paying jobs the public at large has access not only to cheap liquor but even more serious the access to hard drugs like heroine and opioids and unlike the unaffordable hard liquor of Prohibition days drugs are everywhere and affordable and with corrupt doctors and credit cards even when people cannot afford opioids they use the charge card which for the most part was not available during prohibition, if it had been prohibition would have failed much sooner than it did.

  27. This issue doesn’t have to be black and white.

    You can support good cops and not support bad cops.

  28. To Jethro Exederine.

    In America you flaunt your patriotism by attaching a full size flag to your pick up truck (Or a Confederate flag to show alternate patriotism) Singing the Anthem before every baseball game or sending 18 year old kids to Iraq so that later you can thank them for their service as the roll by you in wheel chairs at Wal-Mart.

    In Germany they show patriotism by voting for higher taxes on themselves to make health care and college education universally affordable to their less fortunate fellow citizens. They also pick up after themselves in public parks to keep them clean and presentable for everyone to use.

    Strange since the end of WWII Germany and the U.S. have reversed rolls in the world. Germany has since WWII become liberal and has given financial help to many other countries in regards to global warming and famine or to those that are in financial difficulties while the U.S. seems to invade and bomb another country every 24 hours.

Leave a Reply

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