Previous Post
Next Post


On the face of it, the idea that gun control advocates are members of a death cult is absurd. “We want to save life!” they proclaim. “Gun control – do it for the children!” they urge. In fact, whenever they’re confronted by the obvious impotence of their gun control proposals, they turn their back on facts and rely on IISOL (If It Saves One Life). This rhetorical flourish implies that they’ll do anything to save life – including dissing, dismissing and denigrating Americans’ Second Amendment protection against government infringement on citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. A recent image sent by DrVino [as above] had me rethinking this characterization of the antis’ agenda. And how . . .

I find it incredibly disturbing that two public figures would literally cheer Mr. Gibson horrific demise. In this, Mr. Maher and Mr. Gervais were not alone; the internet is abuzz with celebratory posts. If Maher or Gervais had spent a few minutes Googling Mr. Gibson they would’ve learned that he was a dedicated conservationist and a magnificent wildlife photographer. Gibson was an ethical hunter whose work enhanced the lives of the African people and protected the wildlife he admired.

The debate over ethical hunting aside, Mr. Gibson’s death is lamentable. He was, to coin a phrase, “one life.” Clearly, those who gladly and openly welcomed his death view him as something less than human. That’s the same view gun control advocates have of all gun owners. Not to put too fine a point on it, the “one life” gun control proponents want to save excludes gun owners.

Anti-gun agitprop is suffused with dehumanization. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, for example, calls on citizens to “SWAT” Americans lawfully openly carrying their handguns. The CSGV knows full well that they’re advocating the use of lethal force against gun owners. And why not? The CSGV regularly labels gun owners “degenerates,” “insurrectionists” and “terrorists.”

The anti-gun rights New York Daily News has also taken to applying the word “terrorist” to gun owners. Specifically the NRA and, one supposes, their five million-plus members. This they have done on the front page. Repeatedly. At the other end of the journalistic spectrum, The New York Times has also devoted their front page to call for civilian disarmament – cognizant that the task could only be accomplished by the use of lethal force.

Consider also the disconnect between gun control advocates’ desire to disarm Americans and their enthusiasm for abortion. Regardless of your views on “a woman’s right to choose,” ignoring the link between armed self-defense and the protection of human life, you’d think that any group ostensibly dedicated to saving “one life” would oppose abortion. If not legally then at least ethically and morally. defines a “death cult” as “any organization or group which indoctrinate members in devotion or worship of death, suicide or killing.” It may seem a stretch to associate the above examples of gun control advocates’ animus to “worshipping” death. But there’s no denying that gun control advocates are constantly dwelling on death. They consider people killed by “gun violence” as martyrs, regardless of the circumstances. They “wave the bloody shirt” with self-righteous abandon while willfully denying any and all examples of gun ownership’s life-saving benefits.

Yes but – is the gun rights side any different? Yes. While TTAG has published thousands of stories about firearms-related homicides and suicide, our writers and editors abhor the loss of innocent life. Equally, TTAG (and those who support individual gun rights) do not dehumanize and/or wish the death of those who oppose firearms freedom. The pro-gun end game? To be left in peace.

Researching this post, I came across a 2012 article from TTAG master fisker Bruce Krafft entitled The Costs and Benefits of the Second Amendment – Without the BenefitsIt sums up the dichotomy between pro- and anti-gun rights advocates.

Yes indeed, death is disturbing and final; whether it comes from the muzzle of a gun or the blade of a knife or the tines of a pitchfork or a dollar’s worth of gasoline. But for the most part we gunnies are not obsessed with death and killing, so we prefer to dwell on the positive aspects of gun ownership by the law-abiding. The fact of the matter is that it is about freedom and rights; my freedom to defend myself and those I love from people who would do us harm and the right to carry the safest, most effective self-defense tool in existence.

Truth be told, gun rights advocates will oppose the anti-gun rights death cult until it’s dying breath. Either way you read that sentence, it still applies.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Gun control advocates is the most violent political group in existence. They are the ones calling for murders and celebrating death.

    If gun owners were as violent as the antis proclaim, there would be no anti-gunners.

  2. We’ve always known they’ve been that sick minded. They’d literally rather have you die than have a chance to defend yourself. Smaller or weaker than a person that wants to harm you? They’d rather you die. Can’t defend yourself in 5 shots? They think you deserve to die.

    It goes on and on.

    • And they’d rather that women submit to rape than use firearms for self-defense. Never forget that brilliant idea of the Methodists – who are the group behind the disarmament lobby CSGV.

  3. When I bought my first handgun a good friend who was anti-gun told me she hoped I would kill myself, intentionally or accidentally, with it. When I said see couldn’t really mean that she said she truly did. She apologized later but that was the end of our friendship. I saw an ugly side to her I never would have guessed existed.

    • No offense but that psychotic woman wasn’t your friend. The worst I got from long time buddies after Newtown was “b-b-b but A SALT RYEFULS” after which I would read them some stats, explain what a real assault rifle is, and kindly ask them to drop the issue around me or consider themselves unfriended in real life. It worked every time. Nobody refused to speak with me, and I even converted a couple of fence sitters after some range trips. Then again I’m basically social media free, so anything anyone whined about had to do so directly to my face. Regardless, sorry you had to suffer that headache

  4. There are warriors and poets that write or sing about the tales of the warriors adventure.
    And then there are those that only read about adventure safe in the so called protection of their homes, leading safe and boring drone lives.
    Each have a place in the tapestry of life.
    Maher is a drone, so above the rest of us mere mortals.
    I honestly believe he would pee on himself if he was confornted by a thug.

  5. I had to Google Ricky Gervais, as I thought he was some suave young Cuban singing bo-hunk……how wrong I was. What I did know about his was that I’d seen his name pop up every now and then, especially after Cecil the lion was shot a few months ago. It’s very obvious that he does this to arouse the most base hatreds of self-loathers. People like him are so ashamed of themselves that their fellow humans are predators that they would cheer on the most inconceivable of atrocities to give them a freaking hard-on.

    I had intended to reply, politely but firmly to the point, that this sort of incitement served no constructive purpose whatsoever, then thought better of it. If he and his sycophants were to wish for my horrible death by animal attack then all I could think of to say is that I would be honored and complimented. Which ought to just confuse the hell out of them, poor things.


    • Wasn’t it some sort of Indian (Native American) tradition that you would judge a man according to the danger posed by his enemies?

      These people are dangerous to our Constitutional way of life. I stand ready to be judged.

  6. Gun controllers are not anti violence. They are very much pro violence and pro control. They just want to see the violence and control directed by the Government. A government that they feel will always be helmed by their Top. Men.

  7. It’s the age of the beta male. Alpha’s are warriors, hunters, doers. And they scare the betas. But we now live in an age where betas can safely lash out at those they envy thru mass electronic communications. No risk involved.

    If the betas had to say these things to the face of an alpha…..Darwin awards come to mind.

    How more beta than to lash out at a dead alpha? No risk at all.

    • >warriors
      >take orders from politicians for a living

      Soldiers are the definition of a gamma. They get paid poverty wages to pound sand for their intellectual betters. 🙂

      • Oh look. More dead soldiers aka blain cooper, aka waco biker, aka sexual tyranasaurus ……… oh hell, just one crazy mixed up motherfucker.

        Is it a committee meeting in your head or does the voice screaming the loudest at that moment get to lead?

        • They’re just internet names, jwm. It’s not a big deal.

          Remember, all your body bag friends died in vain. 🙂

        • @More Dead Soldiers,

          I’d take the sacrifice of brave men over the narcissistic blather of internet cowards any day.

  8. It is mostly the Progressives/statists that call for the disarmament of the common people, leaving guns in the hands of the state, naturally. Leaving the means to most efficiently commit mass murder in the hand of those most tyrannical and homicidal. Progressivism is ultimately a death cult, a once free society attempting to collectively committing suicide in a rush towards collectivism and the supremacy of the state.

    Progressivism is the spawn of communism, the most blood soaked belief system of the last hundred years. Progressives attack all aspects of a society that gives it strength, vitality, independence and individual freedom. They are the ones most hostile to the “children”. They attack traditional marriage, the base of any strong culture. They support any “alternative life style” that generally does not have raising children as it’s primary focus.

    They attack a belief in a higher power, not because it is “the opiate of the masses”, but because if the people don’t believe in the supremacy of a higher being, they will be more easily brain washed in submitting to the supremacy of the state as the highest power.

    The progressives attack the rule of law, leaving the rule of man, (the judiciary) as the final arbiter of what is “lawful and constitutional”.

    The progressives lower the standards in school, conditioning for unthinking obedience and being politically correct rather than independent thought based on a solid grounding of a well rounded education.

    Ultimately, progressives attack all aspects of human independence that can give the people an ability to stand up and say no to the demands of an all encompassing “collective good”, determined, of course, by the “elite”, creating, in the end, a new feudal state of the elite ruling over the disarmed, uneducated, fractured ie multi-cultural masses easily guided by the all knowing state.

  9. The biggest mistake for We The People is to assume that the anti-2nd amendment crowd is motivated by anything other than tyranny where they are the people making the decision of who lives and who doesn’t.

  10. “Are Gun Control Advocates Members of a Death Cult?”


    “On the face of it, the idea that gun control advocates are members of a death cult is absurd.”

    No it isn’t.

    Talk is cheap, whiskey costs money. Look at the actions and results, not the rhetoric.

    Every time you look at some leftist loon proposing some manifestly reality challenged guns to violence correlation, or hear some leftist whittering out some multiply disproven gun control shibboleth and you find yourself thinking/saying, “Well, they mean well, but… ”

    STOP. And then slap yourself silly until you wake up.

    No. They do not “mean well.” There is no “but”. They know their proposals won’t accomplish anything useful. They don’t care. They are absolutely members of a death cult. They’re either willing advocates, or useful idiots.

  11. From Wikipedia, everything you need to know to realize why he’s such an assh**e.

    Gervais lives in Hampstead,[117] having moved from Bloomsbury, with his partner of 32 years, producer and author Jane Fallon. He says they chose not to marry because “there’s no point in us having an actual ceremony before the eyes of God because there is no God” or have children because they “didn’t fancy dedicating 16 years of our lives. And there are too many children, of course”.[118] He has a cat named Ollie given to him by Jonathan Ross.[119]

    Gervais is a staunch supporter of gay rights and has praised the introduction of same sex marriage in England and Wales, calling it “a victory for all of us” and stated “anything that promotes equality, promotes progress.” He added: “You can’t take equality ‘too far’.”[120]

    Gervais is an atheist[121] and a humanist,[122] and states he abandoned Christianity at the age of eight. In December 2010 he wrote an editorial for The Wall Street Journal defending his atheism.[123] He is a patron of the British Humanist Association, a British charity which promotes the humanist worldview and campaigns for a secular state and on human rights issues.[122]

  12. In a weird, twisted way I’m actually glad liberals are anti-gun. If they owned guns it seems there would be a lot more dead innocent people in graves.

  13. “Equally, TTAG (and those who support individual gun rights) do not dehumanize and/or wish the death of those who oppose gun rights.”


    Commenters here relish the idea of anti-gunners being hoisted on their own petard. If that means being caught defenseless by a violent criminal, so be it. If that means wishing horrific prison encounters on gun trafficking anti-gun former politicians, all the better. Heck, TTAG even has to have an entire ad hominem policy, with prominent reminders of such, ahead of certain stories.

    Now, maybe the saving grace is that of the pro-2A forces who wish these things, it’s generally in jest, in passing, and with no overt action in furtherance of them. Contrast that to the antis who are dead serious, actively plan some dangerous ploys, and in some cases have carried them out. Still, in our hearts, we’re all sinning the same sin here. Let’s not get too holier-than-thou about it.

    • Does not equate to the boastful glee that the other side takes when actual human tragedy occurs to a real human being. Not even a little bit.

    • “Commenters here relish the idea of anti-gunners being hoisted on their own petard. “

      Some might, but I’d say most do not.

      I, for example, don’t wish ill on anybody. Including my enemies. I want no person attacked or victimized.

    • Oh please. Especially this time of year, with all the schmaltz around, let’s be honest. “Don’t wish ill on enemies….” Puhlease…..

      Entire religions, even the good ones based on the real God, are built on this premise. Behind all the professions of love, faith and goodwill toward man lies the secret desire to see our enemies burn in Hell. I’m not suggesting anyone go run around bragging about it. Still, is it absolutely necessary to lie?

      • Sorry, but no.

        Your premise is false.

        There are people in the world that wish no harm to others.

        I don’t want to hurt anybody. That’s not the same thing as saying I won’t hurt someone if they attack me or mine. Don’t confuse the two concepts.

  14. I agree the liberals are murderous fascists, but I can’t say it doesn’t make me happy when african big game hunters get what they deserve.

    • What they deserve? So in Aerindel land a person deserves to die for engaging in a legal activity? So you and those “murderous fascists” are different, how?

      • Haha, the government murderer mixes up “legal” with “just”. This is hardly unexpected.

        Lots of terrible things are legal. You should know. 🙂

        • Murder? I’ll tell you what mds. I’ll contact one of the alphabet .gov agencies, or more than one and tell them about your self radicalized, home grown jihadi leanings. After san berdoo they may be interested.

          You contact whichever agency you feel you need to and report me for murder. It’ll be interesting to see the results.

          Googling alphabet agencies in 3, 2, 1……

        • Observe, the government animal sides with the statist thugs who consider the 2A community a “domestic terrorist threat”. What a shocker. 🙂

  15. Aerindel and Blaine Cooper:

    Thank you for so eloquently illustrating that you’re both prime examples of the death cult.

    • It’s great when you demand solidarity on doctrinaire conservative stances. You must support the military and trophy hunting to be a gun owner. Hah!

      So, how does shooting an animal and hanging its stuffed corpse on a wall to satiate one’s ego not constitute a “death cult”?

        • Vegetables aren’t sentient, animals are. There’s a difference. Moreover, the trophy hunter seeks thrill kills, and this one was killed in return. How is this a tragedy? No more so than when the animal is killed.

          And remember, inhumane treatment of animals is a precursor symptom of psychopathy. No doubt jwm strangled puppies and kittens as a child, as demonstrated by his current bloodlust.

        • Hunting, whether for food OR for a trophy, is about a humane kill and followed up by the eating of the meat.
          The quicker and more humane the kill the better the meat will taste. Not being a hunter or a rancher will lead to ignorance of this. But the first time you miss a shot and have to chase a wounded beef around rhe yard before it finally dies, and then have to eat that meat for the next year, well… you will make damn sure to not make that stupid mistake the next time.
          Trophy hunters pit themselves against the biggest animals they can find, NOT for ego, but because the oldest and biggest are the greatest challange. Then, the head and cape are saved(and the meat is used too, natch, that is a legal requirement in every state that I know of) and displayed as a tribute to the animal, who will now live on, both in memory, and as a physical object, forever(or a least a lot longer than said animal would ever survive).
          I’m speaking of actual hunters, ofc. I have zero respect for those who buy mounts at an auction and then hang them on the wall, with suitable lies told, that you can always spot the errors of fact in.
          Any of you making the mistake of calling this “not humane” are just pointing a big neon finger right at your own ignorance.
          That is all I have to say.

        • Kenneth,

          I applaud your attempt, but I would caution you to save your breath. No-nothing urban-world-view numb-nuts a-holes that think that “trophy hunting” is about ‘ego’ and the like won’t comprehend what you are saying.

          The logic fail is glaring: they think that hanging antlers on the wall means no meat consumed, which is utterly vapid and stupid. Yet, they come out in every thread on this topic with this nonsense.

        • Did I say that animals have rights? Quote me. Do you disagree that animals ought to be treated humanely?

        • The deer, elephant, whatever in its natural habitat (or contained in a large fenced off preserve) is killed by the hunter’s expanding bullet to the vital organs. Death often comes swiftly and, even after a botched shot, the animal is put out of its misery asap. Compare that to the cows, chickens, and pigs raised in pens, fattened with hormones, and slaughtered by factory farms. Which treatment truly seems inhumane?

        • This story is about trophy hunting, which is not for food, but for egos and thrills. Totally different context. By the way, humane husbandry is also a real thing that people other than treehuggers talk about and believe in.

          And where’s the consternation from this board when the dentist/bow-hunter engaged in a night hunt against the PH’s advice, shot and missed the vital organs, failed to track the wounded lion in the dark, only to finish off the beast the next afternoon? How is that humane treatment?

        • Whining American environmentalists get attached to these animals because they’ve only ever seen them on the Discovery Channel or at the damn zoo. If the high value placed on African mammals by trophy hunting were absent, they would be killed off as pests by rural villagers who see them waltzing down the street with annoying frequency on top of the already widespread poaching issue. Also, the animals killed in these hunts are old, impotent, and pose a huge risk because they attack and sometimes kill the younger ones, stunting conservation efforts further. Cecil was one of these, so the preserve thought “Hey, we could let Cecil die of old age, or we could let him be hunted and get some financial security” and I don’t blame them. These positives outweigh any gripes on the part of “B-b-b but my sweet animooz” because they are proven conservation methods.

          You are sadly playing into the hands of the Social Justice Whackjobs. You’re demanding we feel outrage towards something that involved and affects nobody here personally. This is no different than the antis expecting us to get upset and surrender our guns because a bunch of ghetto crawlers in blue-state, urban cesspools are killing each other daily. The fact that so many nutters threatened to murder this dentist and his family, all because he hunted an animal half way around the planet that nobody would have heard of before Hollywood started their witch hunt, boggles my mind. I could *maybe* understand some of the outrage if there was footage of the hunt being handled sloppily, but there was none. So he made a bunch of bonehead moves, big deal. He was killing an animal. Meanwhile child soldiers are still being conscripted all over Africa by psychotic warlords, and nobody gives a shit. He isn’t John Wayne Gacy or Michael Vick, a man who actually tortured animals to death. He hunted one geriatric lion, and now other lions can live on because of the heaps of money he paid to do it. That’s how real conservation works.

          As for this guy who got killed by an elephant, they don’t call it “dangerous game” for nothing, so I’m not surprised. I may eat what I hunt, but if another person doesn’t I could care less. Animal cruelty laws should exist because torturing or purposely neglecting animals is true inhumane treatment. Hunting, even a botched one like the dentist’s, is not because there’s far more purpose and benefit from it. And human utility still trumps an animal’s “right” to live every day of the week. Peace.

        • Get your facts straight. The dentist killed an animal living on a national preservation, and it had a tracker and was part of a scientific study. It was lured off the preservation with meat bait and shot. Moreover, it was not one of the old animals that have been approved for culling. I have no problem with auctioning off tags to hunt old animals that harm the species. This is not the case with the dentist.

          You claim I am falling into some sort of “trap” set by SJW’s when in reality, this dentist was a convicted poacher in the US before he killed this lion, and he has a notorious reputation in his area for accosting local hunters at gunpoint for “trespassing” on his land. He deserves to be named and shamed as an unethical hunter and general d-bag (not killed, that’s just your attempt to associate critics with the wackjobs). But instead, some hunters insist on solidarity by defending this loser. It’s like black people who defend Michael Brown when there are hundreds of better examples of police brutality out there. Pathetic.

          Lastly your line about child soldiers is hardly relevant. Fallacy of relative privation.

        • Get your facts straight. The dentist killed an animal living on a national preservation, and it had a tracker and was part of a scientific study. It was lured off the preservation with meat bait and shot. Moreover, it was not one of the old animals that have been approved for culling. I have no problem with auctioning off tags to hunt old animals that harm the species. This is not the case with the dentist.

          The irony of this is you claim I am falling into some sort of “trap” set by SJW’s when in reality, this dentist was a convicted poacher in the US before he killed this lion, and he has a notorious reputation in his area for accosting local hunters at gunpoint for “trespassing” on his land. He deserves to be named and shamed as an unethical hunter and general d-bag (not killed, that’s just your attempt to associate critics with the wackjobs). But instead, some hunters insist on solidarity by defending this loser. It’s like black people who defend Michael Brown when there are hundreds of better examples of police brutality out there. Pathetic.

          Lastly your line about child soldiers is hardly relevant: fallacy of relative privation.

        • “This story is about trophy hunting, which is not for food, but for egos and thrills”

          That just shows how much of a total idiot you are. You clearly don’t know anything about “trophy hunting” or this particular man in particular.

          You project your own empty, shallow views of killing an animal onto those that hunt. Hunters that save trophies DO hunt “for food,” but you can’t see that because you’ve been sold a line of Kool Aid and have snorted it.

          How do you know why people “trophy” hunt? Do you know, 100% of the time, it’s about ego and thrills? I’d bet you’ve never hunted, never talked to a hunter and never read the words written by a hunter.

          You are just a shallow a-hole Proggie that thinks you know more than the rest of the world by virtue of your Mom squeezing you out and letting your breathe oxygen.

          Oh, and before you start assuming more non-true crap…I’m not a trophy hunter. I do hunt, though, and I know folks that are “trophy hunters” and therefore know, with 100% certainty, that you are so full of sh1t in your assumptions of who they are that Ex Lax could harvest your saliva for their new product line.

  16. I’m a pro-gun member of the NRA, SAF and GOA. I think he got what was coming to him!

    There’s no such thing as a conservationist hunter. The only type of ethical hunters are ones who eat what they kill – in that case the animals have had a far better life than being stuck in a factory farm and pumped full of hormones & antibiotics.

    If you hunt purely for “the kill” (ie: elephants, rhinos, giraffes, tigers, lions) then you deserve to be prey yourself. Mr Gibson received exactly what he deserved. The fact that he was crushed by a baby elephant who was acting in self-defense is pure Schadenfreude!

    Every creature deserves the right to defend itself and its family.

    Good riddance MF’er.

    • You know that if not for Trophy Hunting most of these species of large African mammals would have fallen prey to land development, poaching for the Chinese traditional medicine market, and agriculture by now, right?

      Or are you just another one of these sock puppet troll posters we’ve been seeing so much of lately?

    • “There’s no such thing as a conservationist hunter.”

      Completely false. Africa would have far less big game if not for hunters. Hunting pays for habitat. Hunters pay for most of the conservation that gets done there and here.

      If you were really interested in conservation, you’d know that. It’s telling that you didn’t.

    • “There’s no such thing as a conservationist hunter. The only type of ethical hunters are ones who eat what they kill”

      Good. So you contradict yourself in your opening salvo.

      You realize how dumb this sounds?

      Are you really celebrating the death of a man simply because he engaged in an activity/lifestyle you don’t understand at all?

      Man. There are two types of stories on TTAG that bring out the weirdest trolls: Open Carry and hunting.

      It’s amazing how weak/feminized men have become. My teen daughter understands more about the facts of killing game animals than many who post here on hunting stories.

    • Sorry Father-I wasn’t referring to BC. I try not to get sucked in with inter(web)sexuals. I like your handle-I’m more of a headshot guy…

  17. We live in an age where beta’s seek control of Alpha’s by entering politics. When they can’t control them they try to marginalize them or demonize them. When one dies they rejoice for they feel their plan is succeeding. They believe that feelings and narrative trump action. They have to for their plan to work.

  18. Sad but not limited to the gun control activists. You see the same cheers from the right-wing evangelical nut jobs when some abortion doctor gets shot. Both sides are quite capable of rationalizing the death of someone they disagree with.

  19. Mmm, I’m very pro gun…well, ownership(absolutely without any regulation whatsoever…if you can afford it you can own it) and their being used against exigent circumstances, but also pretty much against hunting. I’m not going to hold it against the less developed who haven’t figured out how to murder a carrot yet, but for those who do it for “enjoyment” above pure and absolutely necessary survival I have to demurr. I won’t support laws against you for sure, but I also won’t try to disguise the fact that yes, reading this stuff does bring a smile to my face. To each their own.

    • “I also won’t try to disguise the fact that yes, reading this stuff does bring a smile to my face.”

      So, reading of a man being killed brings a smile to your face?

      Good to know.

      And here we are trying to convince ourselves that it is the anti’s that are the “death cult.”

        • Yeah, I don’t agree with that, either. I saw how that was necessary, but that fact does not make the death itself something to ‘celebrate.’

        • “Quite a few smiling people here when bin laden got capped”. Maybe the dumbest comment yet. If that bothered you so much, you and JR could send flowers to his family

        • I think it’s OK to take satisfaction when someone proven to be evil is eliminated. That said, I’m pro-fair trial, against the death penalty and pro military action against our foreign enemies. Go figure.

        • If you want to make your characterization of “death cult” a relative term than sure, have at it. Not sure how to define “evil” in any objective way, and there are plenty of people would would say that systematically killing any highly intelligent creature with a sense of their own mortality–whether they be human, ape, elephant or whale–is a form of evil. I’m not going to jump for joy for this guy’s fate but some will. Just saying let’s not kid ourselves by pretending that we have some monopoly on the moral high ground when it comes to schadenfreude. We all have our bias.

        • ” If that bothered you so much, you and JR could send flowers to his family”

          What kind of trollish idiocy is this? This non sequitur is a totally illogical attempt to show me as weak or cowardly or something along those lines.

          I never said it “bothered” me. I said I did not “celebrate” it. Comprehend the difference, or if you lack the neurological horsepower to comprehend that difference, at least stop putting word’s into people’s mouths.

          As a matter of fact to set the record straight, my reaction to Bin Laden getting killed was pretty pragmatic. I thought, “Ok, so we don’t have to worry about HIM anymore. Now, who’s the next target…the one still living that does represent a threat.”

          But nowhere in this was “happiness” over the death of a human being. I guess I just am not so emotionally manipulated as to get my “jollies” from things like this. I see problems and solutions, and killing Bin Laden was an effective solution to a specific problem. The goal is to solve the problem; if an equally effective solution had presented itself, his lack of death would not have caused me grief or disappointment or anything. As stated…the goal is to solve the problem.

  20. I am sad to see the man died. My condolences to his family and friends.


    I can see the humor of a hunter being killed by the hunted. Not something to be celebrated like that idiot Maher is doing because that is just wrong and a sure sign of a sick mind to take joy in the death of others. But it is humorous, somewhere between irony and schadenfreude.

    I do tend to laugh at inappropriate things so your mileage my vary.

  21. Why is this being reported as a “baby elephant”? It was a male in rut and hyper aggressive. Gibson, the guide, not the hunter, was tracking it (maybe too closely) to get a look at it’s tusks. It may have not been an old bull, but certainly not a baby by any means.
    In a different manner than some of our commentators, I celebrate this man’s death, as well as his life. Not that he died, but that he died hunting. I wish he had lived out a long time, because by every account I can find he was considered a good man and certainly did a lot for hunting and conservation efforts.
    But he died in the wild, an honorable death, doing what he loved. I would have rather it have been many years from now, but if you are going to go early, it’s a good way to go.

  22. So its ok to call for random “icky” or “badthink” types to die, is it? Does that mean I can call for the death of Maher, Gervais, Watts, or any random demonrat? Can I celebrate when a bunch of SJW asshat college tards get whacked?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here