Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: AR Prof. Erik Gilbert's Advice to His Texas Colleagues on Campus Carry">Previous Post
Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: White People Express Frustration With Guns">Next Post

“Owning a gun doesn’t make me a hillbilly or a bad mom. I’m not out in my back yard shooting squirrels for fun or blaring Ted Nugent over the radio while my toddler runs around playing ‘cops and robbers’ with a Glock. I’m an educated woman who wishes Sarah Palin would shut the hell up. I work, I vote and I value my freedoms. I own guns because I’ve just got this urge as a mother to want to keep my family safe.” – Hannah Murphy in Owning guns doesn’t make me a bad mom [via]


Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: AR Prof. Erik Gilbert's Advice to His Texas Colleagues on Campus Carry">Previous Post
Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: White People Express Frustration With Guns">Next Post


  1. “I work, I vote and I value my freedoms. I own guns because I’ve just got this urge as a mother to want to keep my family safe.” 

    This is where she committed heresy and can no longer be considered a woman, in the eye’s of the progress. Since she is apparently just another OFWG, she won’t count.

  2. She would have done so much better if she left it at ” I work, I vote and I value my freedoms. I own guns because I’ve just got this urge as a mother to want to keep my family safe.”

    • Maybe for this audience here. But, perhaps she is simply trying to get out in front of the stereotyping from her expected reader demographics.

      Either way it tries to drive home the point that gun owners aren’t homogeneous.

      • +1. She was probably not addressing conservative gun owners. Furthermore, she may not be conservative. Just because one is conservative, doesn’t make one pro-freedom. Also, she simply may not like Nugent, or Palin – which is fine. IMO – everything about this is a total non-issue.

    • I think she kinda dissed Sarah Palin. Which is fine by me, since I also wish she would shut the hell up.

      But overall, your point is well taken.

    • Sure she does K. Actually read the article. She also disses the “lead crazed conservative cowboys” , ( I resemble that remark).

      She implies that a hillbilly is a bad thing, by saying she isn’t a hillbilly letting her kids run around the yard with glock in hand, and that listening to a blaring radio with some classic Ted rock is some how a bad thing.

      She sounds like another progressive full of hate, bigotry and intolerance; That would be completely happy with the government tyranny of gun control and the denial of the basic right to KABA.

    • Yes. She does. My father is a Hillbilly. She has no right to trample my heritage like that.

      I’m so triggered right now.

    • She sounds like a Sanders supporter who is desperately trying to justify gun ownership to her disapproving girlfriends.

      • Actually, I know many Bern feelers who are gun folks, or at least are neural (support gun ownership without actually owning guns.)

        I don’t know a single Hillary the “I don’t need no stinkin’ secured sever” Clinton supporter who likes guns, for whatever that is worth.

        Oh wait, no, I do. My mother likes Hillary and she owns a gun. OK, so there, I know exactly one Clinton supporter who likes guns.

        Though, she’s one of those people who are super religious and conservative, but still blindly votes for establishment D’s… Because, you know, she is brown and has a Spanish accent. I never could quite figure that whole thing out.

  3. She says she values her freedoms. Then she writes this:
    “Now, all of my pro-gun defense doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t support laws that might restrict someone’s access to firearms. I’ve owned guns my entire life. It’s such a tiny part of my life, yet I consider it so important that I’m willing to do whatever is necessary to maintain that ownership. If I need to jump through a few more hoops to own one, so be it. Give me a background check; make me take a class, or pass a test — I’ll do whatever I need to do because I not only care about the safety of my own kids, but the safety of everyone.”

    So maybe she doesn’t really know what freedom means.

    • I doubt she has ever really thought for more than 10 seconds about whether “a few more hoops” actually do anything to prevent crime. She’s just been told it long enough by the progressive media and Democrats that she figures it makes sense. If we believe the gun grabbers (which we don’t, of course), their purpose in enacting these laws is to prevent bad people from getting guns. What do classes, tests, or permits really do to stop people who don’t obey laws? Nothing. Criminals continue to carry guns regardless of any purchase permits, carry permits, classes, tests, waiting periods, or just about any other of the recycled progressive ideas purported to “make us safer.” If she has really owned guns for as long as she has, she’d have figured out that the liberal weenies are recycling the same ideas from back in 1994 (when I first became a gun owner). And I’m sure those are recycled ideas from the 1980s and 1970s, when I was just a kid.

    • This. While I agree with her that I would do those things to own a gun (I already do some of those things to own and carry mine) it doesnt make it right. The same as I would go through hoops to vote or go through hoops to protest doesnt mean that those restrictions in place are the right thing to do.

    • I cannot even believe you said that maybe she doesn’t know what Freedom means !
      Are you serious?!?!
      If you believe in unrestricted freedom you need to be educated. Unrestricted freedom is absolute chaos.
      Everything to a degree is restricted no its and or buts. From driving to speech to what one wears ( to a lesser degree) to work protocols etc etc. Why should gun ownership be any different??? Answer: It shouldn’t AND must not be. I am for our Second Amendment as much or more than most but come on….seriously???!
      Start your little world with complete freedom and see how long it and maybe even you last.

      • ” I am for our Second Amendment as much or more than most but “

        A very common Statist refrain.

        Jaffas, I don’t know you or if you are in fact a “Statist.” But I would suggest you be very careful of slippery slopes and from where you allow these “restrictions” of which you speak.

        There are “social” restrictions imposed on our behavior in the form of norms, mores and taboos. What you wear to work fits that description, and those mores (for example) are codified in employment policy.

        That’s a FAR, FAR stretch from a law. For example, if I apply for a job at a place that has a dress code that I disagree with, I have “freedom of choice.” I can accept the dress code or not.

        We don’t, in general, put people in jail for what the wear. In fact, there are certain “offensive” modes of dress that are actually PROTECTED! Imagine that.

        But putting aside the False Equivalency between mores and laws, you seem to be (and I’ll welcome being wrong on this) perfectly willing to accept LEGAL restrictions on such things as private ownership of property (ie, guns).

        There are many problems with such top-down restrictions and those get discussed here often. They include (but are not limited to) abuses by the ‘defining authority,’ philosophical problems with “The State” telling a “free people” what they can own, as well as the whole can-of-worms that the ‘restrictions’ demonstrably do not solve the “problem” they are purported to solve (lowering crime, etc).

        One really needs to step back from the emotional “yeah, some restrictions make sense” and look at this stuff big-picture. Or, as someone much smarter than me once said…

        “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

        –Benjamin Franklin

        • That was a very well written response Benjamin Franklin and I thank you and no…I did not mean to come across as all laws are good. They must be kept in check even more than our social norms or voluntary restrictions so I stand corrected and willingly so.
          Hope we talk again and I mean this… Thanks for the clarity.

        • “Hope we talk again … “

          Absolutely. This is a great site for good conversations on ‘big’ topics. I welcome your continued input as well.

      • “I am for our Second Amendment as much or more than most but come on….seriously???!”

        Well, you don’t sound it. It sounds like you’ve bought into the same progressive talking points about safety, which don’t really do anything to keep us safer. I’ll be the first to acknowledge that I tire of people who come on to forums and proclaim “What don’t you understand about ‘shall not be infringed’!?!” as if that is the “final answer” to any involving guns. Many people who want to talk about the 2A need to be better about articulating why such laws are infringements. What is obvious to them is not obvious to non-gun owners.

        But why do you feel like removing extra “hoops” are the path to unfettered freedom and chaos? As if increasing freedom where safety is not meaningfully implicated is a bad thing? We are not talking about what people wear to work or the kind of car they drive, we are talking about the natural right of self-defense. We are talking about the freedom to choose how one protects him or herself and those he cares about (and sometimes, the general public). Nobody is claiming you need to do that with a nuclear weapon, a hand grenade, or a SAW. But pro-2A people have been saying for many years that the limitations imposed on our freedom do not address the purported reasons for the laws restricting them. “Assault weapons” bans, high capacity magazine bans, proving your need to carry a firearm on the street, or even to own one in your own home, mandatory safe storage laws, mandatory waiting period, etc. are simple nonsense when it comes to public safety. And that’s because they have nothing to do with safety, but instead about control. Whittling a little bit away each time until people like you and this mommy blogger become complacent, and say “well, that’s no big deal.” That’s your prerogative, I suppose, but f*ck if I’m going to let the government control my immediate safety. They don’t have to do it, and frankly, can’t do it.

        • I just wrote that I do not believe that all laws are good even if some are good intentioned BUT I do stand on that not everyone should be willingly allowed to own guns of any kind due to their willingness to continually break basic or not so basic laws.
          IF and I mean IF there is a way to assist in preventing this without UNNECESSARY restrictions to law abiding AND responsible citizens than I am for it. Not additional laws but better and more meaningful ways to do it.
          If you disagree…I will still have your six if you need it and I am able.

      • Freedom is not the absence of laws.

        Freedom means you don’t need the government’s permission to exercise a right that’s guaranteed by the Constitution.

        Imagine if, before receiving your voter registration card, you had to pay a fee, pass a background check, take some training and pass a test. Would that seem like freedom to you?

      • “unrestricted freedom is chaos”? You mean like being able to OC or CC a firearm without need of a permit or license?

        It does take a moral and ethical people, trained from birth by mature and responsible parents; to handle unrestricted freedom. Our republic cannot survive without such people.

        But that is what the progressives are rapidly changing/destroying. They are turning our nation into a cess pool of “victims”, without discipline, or self-control; rewarded for simply filling a seat in a class room. This, while filling their heads with hatred and envy for those that are productive, with the expectation that they should receive the wealth
        that others produced; simply because it is their “right”.

        The only chaos that is produced by unrestricted freedom, is by those that have been trained to believe that the laws do not apply to them, that they can demand the fruits of others labor, and that have been conditioned to believe that no matter what they do for themselves, “white privilege” will keep them poor and uneducated.

    • Don’t forget about the 1st part of the 2nd Amendment.

      The Government would be within the the bounds of the 2nd Amendment to require regular training and practice.

      • No they wouldn’t.

        the framing statement is simply that. It carries no legal weight in regards to the primary clause that says explicitly and unconditionally what the government is not allowed to do.

        Eliminate everything before “, the” and the meaning of the 2nd amendment changes not one bit.

        • True Sian, except for the Militia act of 1792 which by law, requires all 17 to 45 y/o males to have a fire arm and to be required to answer a call for muster, if called up by the governmental authorities.

      • Cool! The G fitting the bill…

        I’ll take an M2 with a few thousand rounds, some frags, and one of those sweet suppressed M249’s Jerry was skinin’ in that video yesterday.

        Just doing my part – ‘Murica!

  4. “I’m not out in my back yard shooting squirrels for fun or blaring Ted Nugent over the radio while my toddler runs around playing ‘cops and robbers’ with a Glock.”

    Oh the memories, late 60’s with my plastic GI helmet, grenade, wood M1 replica and side arm, a plastic ivory handle with paper roll caps and real leather holster. Early 70’s graduating to a pellet gun taking doves for lunch, in suburbia no less. Barring having a chest grab, I’ll leave this world in 20-30 years smiling about great technical achievements and frown knowing erosion of liberty.

  5. It doesn’t matter what any other firearms owners say, look like, or do — gun-grabbers are going to find some reason to deride any given gun owner no matter what.

    Stop worrying about how gun-grabbers will attack us. No matter what we do or do not do, they are going to attack us.

    Instead, go on the offensive. Ask provocative questions to gun-grabbers like these:

    (1) Why do you [gun-grabber] hate women? Why do you want to ensure that our sisters, wives, daughters, and mothers are unable to stop scumbags from brutally raping them?

    (2) Why do you [gun-grabber] hate senior citizens? Why do you want to ensure that needy senior citizens on fixed incomes are unable to stop thugs from taking their social security money … and force those seniors to choose between eating and having their medicine for the month?

    (3) Why do you [gun-grabber] hate families? Why do you want to ensure that a mother or father is unable to stop a deranged person from beating or killing their family members in a home invasion or at a family outing?

    (4) Why do you [gun-grabber] hate single men and women? Why do you want to ensure that single men and women are not able to stop an attacker from robbing and/or killing them when they go out on the town?

    (5) Why do you [gun-grabber] hate people who practice their religion? Why do you want to ensure that people who practice their religion are unable to stop a spree-killer or terrorist from killing them at their church, mosque, or synagogue?

    I recommend that you put on some laboratory grade goggles before asking these questions … gun-grabbers’ heads will most certainly explode. You might also want to have earplugs to protect your hearing from their screaming and yelling. And prepare to see site administrators delete your questions from many social forums.

    • Uncommon Sense, I disagree. I’m sure we are on the same side of these issues, but you suggest resorting to the libtard’s tactic of last resort – attack the person who disagrees with you instead of addressing the issue you disagree about. I prefer the high road myself. If logic doesn’t work, you’re wasting your breath anyway – their minds are closed and “you are a racist homophobe bible-clinging hillbilly” is all they will remember from the interaction…just my 2 cents worth.

      I actually had a discussion with one of these types once where they said to me “Why do you hate children?” You can’t penetrate a skull that thick.

      • Where did he advocated attacking a person instead of the position?

        Your reply so far missed the point of his post that I’m wondering if this is intentional misrepresentation…

  6. I would rather have her for a neighbor than any other hoplophobe I have ever met. She does go on to not have a problem with some gun control laws/restrictions that most of us reject outright, but the foundation of her gun ownership is sound.

  7. If her only guns are 2 old shotguns, hidden away separate from the ammo, how exactly does she plan on defending her family? I get that her blog probably amounts to heresy among the readership of that website, who likely trend towards uber liberal, but her willingness to submit to excessive government scrutiny makes her a “mommyfudd” IMHO.

  8. “I’m an educated woman who wishes Sarah Palin would shut the hell up.”

    Sarah has as much right to speak her mind as do you, Ms. Murphy. My guess is that you’re a tad jealous that Sarah has a bigger audience . . . which apparently includes you.

    • I think you assume too much. She didn’t suggest denying anyone their rights. Sadly, Ms. Palin gets invited to talk on TV so liberals have someone to mock.

      I would never think of denying Ted Nugent his rights, either. But since he does the gun rights cause more harm than good, I wish he would shut the hell up.

      • He’s a completely tactless, loud mouthed asshole. But rarely is he an incorrect, tactless, loud mouthed asshole.

    • She has a right to speak her mind, and she’s just about spoke all that is there. Her 15 minutes are up and she just can’t face it.

      • You just described every previously famous/relevant person, ever.

        And the main stream media, by my measure.

  9. don’t forget [gun grabber] about hating your veterans as they are all nuts, trained killers, PTSD infected!
    Don’t Forget [gun grabber] how your Seditious,Treasonous, Hating ways are helping the Muslim bigwigs achieve their goals of destroying the supposed freedoms of the USA!

    • One can tired of Ted’s incessant shilling for hunting products, however can find no fault in the full exercise of his liberites.

      As for Mrs. Palin that nasal monotonic shrill is unnerving.

  10. She probably supports Ted Cruz and is pissed off at Palin for selling out to a liberal Democrat like Donald Trump.. Despite the propaganda Palin is fairly well educated.

    I have never demeaned hillbillies being descended from one, but when I encounter an anti Second Amendment sophisticate babbling on about gap toothed primatives I go out of my way to ask them where they got their Ph.D from and tell them where I got mine. Usually shuts them up.

  11. Yeah, I don’t care for Ted or Sarah very much. Mostly just the way deliver their message. But, at the same time, don’t go insulting a group of people that you probably agree with about 95% of time. Just say that you don’t care for Ted Nugent or Sarah Palin and leave it at that. I liken it to the attitude that a lot of atheists have; I’m an atheist also, but I don’t feel the need to browbeat or insult people of faith. If they choose to believe, more power to them.

    • Sitting in Indianapolis until 1:am waiting to get loaded or not….got a wood chip in my eye yesterday while cutting ( chainsaws are dangerous you know) so hence I am able to read these as they come up.
      I like the the writers last comments about rights and differences. I once read or heard of an atheist ( I think but I may be incorrect) say that even if the Bible is wrong it it still the best way to live. Though I am a Believer I regret to say that most times you would not see it. On that note a bumper sticker read ” If you don’t believe in hell, you’d better be right” Very true.
      Let us not think Christians are passive aggressive. There is a time for action and when that time comes, armed Christ followers are among the first to stand.
      To all Second Amendment believers, whether we agree or not….I salute YOU!!

    • “Just say that you don’t care for Ted Nugent or Sarah Palin and leave it at that.”

      Why even say that? What pop culture BS causes any of this to be, you know, relevant.

      The real message she has is that she’s a gun owner and she has a Darn Good Reason(tm) to be one…she wants to actively be involved in protecting her family.

      Who cares if she likes/dislikes “the right people.” THIS is a big part of what is ruining this country…preoccupation with tangential PC garbage.

  12. She’s awfully high & mighty for somebody that considers keeping her guns “hidden” from her kids is acceptable. If they aren’t in her possession they need to be stored in a safe – not “hidden”! Rediculous lady.

  13. Aw c’mon she’s mostly there. Pro-gun but disses Palin. I was never a fan. And after Uncle Ted’s Jewish diatribe(sure you love Israel) I get it. Ted even makes fun of himself(SEE: The Simpsons). 2A purity is elusive.

  14. It’s a start. If we can get moderates to express that they are OK with guns, we can then educate them on the fallacies of gun control laws and so forth.

    My other half has her own guns, but kind of stuck to the refrain of “who needs that?” when presented with evil black rifles and (gasp!) suppressors – but over time myself and others have managed to educate her on the realities of what an EBR really is and how Hollywood has misrepresented suppressors for decades.

    The fact that she was OK with owning a gun made it easier, of course. And therein lies the trick – get the anti behind a gun, then go from there.

  15. A lot of conservatives wish Sarah Palin would shut up at this point. I’m convinced she was the most unfairly-treated political candidate in modern times, bar none, but she has stepped in it, metaphorical cow-patty-wise, more than once since then. And I agree with other posters who figure she [Murphy, not Palin] is mostly trying to shut down the immediate stereotyping reaction anyway. She’s not dissing hillbillies so much as she’s dissing the knee-jerk liberal idea of “hillbillies”, IMO. [based on the portion quoted here]

    • Agree with you on Palin, though Quayle’s rough go of it was excessive, too, and maybe worse.

      On this writer’s overall tone, though, I think she’s more distancing herself from the “other” gun owners, as opposed to disabusing people antis of that perception being typical. That is, she isn’t defending all gun owners by calling out the prejudice of caricatures.

      She’s conceding those caricatures are accurate in general, while carving out a “Oh, but goodness gracious, no! I’m not THAT kind of gun owner!” exception for herself. She’s a “reasonable gun control”, guns for me but not for thee, Fudd.

      • Having seen some more excerpts from the article in the discussion here, I’m afraid you may be on to something.

      • BTW, I would try to read the article, but I’ve clicked on it twice now and it locked up the whole browser. Had to go to Task Manager to get out.

  16. Maybe her gun guilt stems from her days polluting our waterways shooting lead at the numerous plastic bottles she and her father “waged war” on in the river?


    Or maybe it’s just part of the same general ignorance that allows her to consider unloaded, hidden shotguns as passing for being safely secured from her children?

  17. I don’t know about you, but I love shooting squirrels in my backyard to the sound of Stranglehold…. Just saying.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here