Previous Post
Next Post

Portland Hate Crime: Heroes Honored As The City Searches For Answers the headline proclaims at proclaims. You’ve probably heard the story by now: “Three men were stabbed Friday, two of them fatally, as they tried to de-escalate a situation involving a man who was yelling racial slurs at two young, apparently Muslim, women.” Here’s an answer I’m searching for . . .

What if one of the three men who decided to intervene had been carrying a gun? Would that have at least limited the carnage? While I don’t accept the idea that “Muslim” is a race, I still consider this heinous act a “hate crime.” I hate the fact that two innocent people were threatened, two died and one was horribly injured for want of armed personal protection.

I’m not blaming the victims. No one has to carry a gun. But I am pointing my finger at America’s anti-gun culture: the “gun safety” advocates who actively discourage and dis-enable armed self-defense. By protecting and erecting barriers to firearms freedom, these statist crusaders put millions of law-abiding Americans in harm’s way. I hate that.

Yes, I used the “h” word. No, I’m not a physical threat to anyone. Nor are you gentle reader. So feel free to reveal. What part of gun control triggers your contempt and ire?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. No one specific part triggers me but, the quote “why do you need an assault rifle for hunting” has the potential to set me off every single time.

    • Grates the nerves even more when preceded by “I’m a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, BUT…”

    • There’s actually perfect uses for one in a hunting situation anyways. A lot of animals that are hunted for being a danger/harmful to the environment (boar, coyote and other dogs) instead of for meat are small enough for intermediate cartridges and come in packs.

    • “why do you need an assault rifle for hunting” My answer is always “I don’t hunt”

      My guns are for two purposes protection and recreation

    • One of the things are ” it’s for the children” which seems to have become a rally cry.
      All the politicians pushing for gun control that don’t know straight up about guns.
      All the anti gun groups that don’t know straight.
      Guess I could go on and on,but you get the gist of it.

  2. I hate the ignorance. Most of the people that push gun control label us ignorant, yet they are ignorant about firearms, much more so the reasons they are constitutionally protected.

    • Are you telling me a “barrel shroud” isn’t a “shoulder thing that goes up?”

  3. “What part of gun control triggers your contempt and ire?”
    Any and all of it.

  4. All of it. What f*cking part of Shall not be Infringed don’t people understand. Boiling blood @ anti-American liberals.

  5. The lies. The outright appeals to emotion vs logic and reason. The backhanded doubletalk of “I support the second amendment, but…” The complete and utter dishonesty concerning the reading and interpretation of the Second Amendment. Limits on my freedom disguised as ‘common sense’. Need I go on?

  6. It absolutely is a hate crime if the only reason the attack is happening is the race or religion of the victim. If the attack would not have happened otherwise, that is a hate crime.

    Now, we can argue over whether or not a hate crime should be a seperate category for charges. But a hate crime does exist above and beyond the ‘regular” crime.

    • And just to shed light on the other view here, “hate crimes” do not exist.

      “Crime” is the what happened. “Hate” is the why it happened, or motive.

      What difference does it make to the victim, or society, what the reason WHY? The injury to the victim and to the dignity of the crown is unaffected by the WHY.

      Punish the WHAT happened, the WHY is irrelevant.

      Making WHY an element of the crime will inevitably lead to making thoughts without criminal action a crime as well.

      Of course we are already WELL down that road. This is part of why we are there.

      • The distinction is simply that the hatred is not due to the personal relationship between the attacker and the victim, such as domestic violence or personal revenge, but simply due to the victim being a member of a targeted group based on race, religion, etc. And hatred is a factor or element of the crimes, since assault, battery and murder are generally specific intent crimes. The prosecutor must show that the suspect intended to cause contact/harm, and this can be demonstrated by showing that the suspect hated the victim because of the victim’s being a member of a targeted group. It is in this sense no different that the assault/murder occurred because the suspect intended to rob the victim.

        • “The prosecutor must show that the suspect intended to cause contact/harm, and this can be demonstrated by showing that the suspect hated the victim because of the victim’s being a member of a targeted group.”

          Ok, that makes sense, but does not explain why that hate should be a separate crime. Once it is established that the suspect *intended* to do harm, proceed with the punishment, what the reason was for that intent is completely unimportant. If you intended to harm him because he was a man, and you hated men, you should receive the same punishment as you would if you intended to harm him for profit, and you loved profit.

      • “What difference does it make to the victim, or society”.

        OK I will play.
        Hate crimes are usually committed to shape society, and usually in a bad way. The Klan did not hang people just to murder, but to achieve political goals to are not conducive to a free society. If you don’t think that is a greater danger to society than a simple murder, well no point in arguing.

      • “What difference does it make to the victim, or society, what the reason WHY?”

        Well, you can argue that but a huge part of our legal system for violent crime is based on “why” and intent (mens rea). When you shoot the pool-guy upon finding him in bed with your wife, generally it’s considered a crime of passion and treated somewhat less heavily than if you take out a life insurance policy on your wife and take her out on a fishing trip to drown her and make it seem like an accident.

        Terrorism is also generally punished much more heavily than ‘normal’ murders due to the fact that it attacks the political system; targeted attacks on judges, cops, prosecutors, witnesses, jurors etc because it attacks the judicial system.

        I don’t see the need for a particular ‘hate crime’ statute anymore (originally created because all-white juries had a tendency not to convict for lynchings) but the idea of punishing based on intent is ancient and incorporated heavily in our justice system from the start (including from common law).

  7. For me, it ultimately comes down to dishonesty. Dishonesty is the foundational tool of evil. In an intellectually honest discussion about violence, I think all would agree that the desired goal is that people not shoot one another. In spite of virtually unlimited data showing that mere possession of firearms does not mean more people shoot each other, the gun-control side continually pushes the effort to disarm everyone, one step at a time. Yes, there are some truly well-meaning folks on the other side, but they are gullible, and have been deceived by the evil ones who know better.

    It is the USE of an item that should be regulated, not the possession. Guns should be regulated like cigarettes, for example. A dangerous product, the use of which is highly regulated, and appropriately so. But for those whose use of the product is legal, what regulations are there on the mere POSSESSION of it? None that I know of. So of course, we have laws against discharging firearms in unsafe ways and in dangerous places. But what purpose is ever actually served by restricting a law-abiding person from mere possession?

    • The power to “regulate” is the power to prohibit. Anything.

      Since almost anything MIGHT be used to harm people, and might even be dangerous in and of itself, allowing anyone the power to “regulate” is the inevitable step towards prohibition – control by any other name.

      And the very next step beyond control of things, is mind control and punishment for “wrong thinking.”

      I have not seen any account of this story that gives enough information. Why did the encounter escalate from protest over the verbal abuse of the women? What happened between that and the lethal attack? Did the two would-be rescuers attack the verbal abuser?

      Yes indeed, it should have been a defensive gun use, likely. It would help to know who initiated the violence.

    • “But for those whose use of the product is legal, what regulations are there on the mere POSSESSION of it? None that I know of. ”

      I’m going to disagree here for arguments sake, there are plenty of tobacco free places, they are limiting the use and sometimes the mere possession of it. Some places you’re not allowed to smoke within 50ft of an entrance, even you’re on a different property.

      If we start down that road with firearms, it will be no using in schools or government buildings, seems reasonable. Next it’s no possession in those places, then we get to no use outside of authorized facilities like ranges and hunting land and finally we get to no possession outside of ones property. Because the mere act of possessing a firearm signals your eminent intent to cause harm to another person, why else would you need a gun?

      Does any of that sound familiar? The problem with allowing for some small regulation is it’s too easy to expand and slide down that slippery slope. Hence the reason the second specifically says “shall not be infringed,” to prevent that slippery slope

      • “and sometimes the mere possession of it. Some places you’re not allowed to smoke within 50ft of an entrance, even you’re on a different property.”

        Second sentence is still about use. I’d be curious to know of any laws or ordinances (not private policies) prohibiting possession of tobacco products – and here’s the key: in SPECIFIC places, by people who are otherwise allowed to possess and use, so kids don’t count. You make the assertion, can you provide examples?

        • State institutions mostly, sometimes hospitals are completely obacco free. In college they made university property tobacco free, $25 for possessing a can of dip with an open seal inside a building, possession and use. The fine was eventually removed because enough protests were filed before any fines were ever handed out. Although they kept the urns and cleaned them, go figure

          It was done in the name of public health, with gun violence being studied as public health issue we need to be even more vigilant about seemingly benign “common sense” restrictions

          It’s a slippery slope to go from restricting them from obvious activity. To restricting them to use only in designated areas like ranges and hunting land. Easily enough they can make an argument that possessing a weapon outside them home is intent to commit a crime and that person should Ben imprisoned immediately, I mean why else does someone need a gun?

        • So at best, it’s a policy with a penalty – that is no longer applied. Not a crime, which is what lots of laws and ordinances make the mere possession of firearms. You appear to have confirmed my point.

      • It is not the POSSESION that is regulated, it is the USE. Desk pops are illegal, whether you are in a Federal building or not.

    • Crowded Metro train, and in knife range. Unless the victims had the same aggressiveness as the attacker, I would not have bet on a better outcome. I’m probably better than 90% of the people who carry, and I would have hated my odds in that situation.

      • Exactly. I discussed this with friends who ride the MAX, and we couldn’t see any better outcome if anyone had been packing — in fact given the populace of Portland, the appearance of a gun could have made things worse. The only weapon we could think of that would have helped would have been a belt or cord in the hands of someone behind the guy with the knife.

        There’s also a good chance the guy was on drugs, in which case the mere appearance of a gun wouldn’t have had any effect except to enrage him more, at which point you’d be pretty much committed to shooting — in a situation with no good angles unless you want to drop to the floor and shoot up so there’s no one behind him.

  8. Prime example of somebody did something wrong so let’s punish those who didn’t do it.

  9. In two words, gun control

    In one word, ignorance

    By that I mean ignorant people are making false associations between action and causality. Violence didn’t not start with the invention of the gun and mass killings did not start with the gun. Violence is a human action that cannot be facilitated from an inanimate object.

    Just like a brick, it can break a window or build a house the person is what matters

  10. I hate ALL gun control. Sorry I don’t subscribe to “hate crime” thought. Or all the naval gazing attached to “”motive”.

  11. with few exceptions, i’m very anti-fiat laws. no victim? no property damage? no utter recklessness? (DUIs, for example) I don’t want my tax dollars being spent to punish you.

    if someones only ‘crime’ is possessing a plastic tube that holds a few extra rounds, i don’t want them locked up
    if someones only “crime” is selling a firearm to someone they know, i don’t want them locked up because they didn’t waste resources on a BGC.

    etc, etc

  12. I always expect a high degree of stupidity among people involved with gun control, but I’m totally shocked that any of those stupid fools are allowed to exercise control over anyone else.

  13. The smug and patronizing sanctimony that usually garnishes the rhetoric of those who advocate private disarmament. (Gun control is what they teach at Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, etc. And hate nothing about that.)

  14. You ask “What if one of the three men who decided to intervene had been carrying a gun?” The proper question is “Would you, as a peaceable armed citizen, get involved in an argument in public with a man acting like that?” Why? So you can teach him a lesson about hate speech?

  15. People elect officials who feel that bans prevent bad behavior. Then they can go back to sleep.
    My clients don’t want to visit England this summer because of Manchester. I said just go. Everywhere is safe nowhere is safe, I said. He said he got it.
    People have to get in charge of their own fears. Projecting them on others is not making for a free society. Oh your dog might bite me. Your jet ski might kill me….
    I’ll pass a law no dogs no jet skis. Now I feel safe. Until…..? Perhaps a law that doesn’t allow you to vote if you have anxiety past a certain scale. You should be retested once a year for $50 at your expense. Is that amount high enough? 🙂

    • “People have to get in charge of their own fears. Projecting them on others is not making for a free society. Oh your dog might bite me. Your jet ski might kill me….”

      We have a winner!

      The thing to really hate about gun control is the idea that the law is a legitimate tool for coercing people to be “nice”, which at root is all about fear. The real irony of that for gun control is that people supporting it are voting to control one batch of people with guns by employing another batch of people with guns.

  16. Who will protect me, I ask? “The police, silly!”

    Nope, the police have absolutely ZERO obligation to protect you. If anything they benefit from more crime. They get more work and more members to add to their union.

  17. What I hate about gun control is that I actually once lived in a jurisdiction with some of the tightest gun control in the USA, and all it meant was that regular gun owners were subjected to hurdles, disrespect, and prohibitions, while two other subsets of society- criminals and the politically connected- had quick easy access to any weaponry that they desired. To me that spells DESPOTISM

  18. Mostly what raises my ire is when I miss. Like De La Soul said “…gun control means using both hands in my land…”

    In all seriousness though, really, it’s the lack of logic and reasoning. Every time I hear gun control arguments I ask/want to ask “OK, you want to save lives. I get that and even applaud the notion but what makes you think [insert gun control suggestion here] will do what you want it to?” It kinda drives me nuts because a few moments of critical examination and most of those proposals simply can’t work in the real world.

    Oh, and also, two for three on fatalities kinda puts the lie to the arguments advanced by The_Resistance doesn’t it?

    • I have a friend who always brings up political stuff when he knows I disagree with him on about 98% of what he says. When he brought up guns recently. I just kept repeating that I’m fine with whatever he is willing to do to voters. ID’s and background checks. Fine if we do it to voters. Mandatory training. Fine if we do it to voters. Tests. Fine if we do it to voters. He even said felons should be able to vote because that has nothing to do with voting. I said most felonies have nothing to do with guns, and if I don’t trust someone with a gun, I don’t trust them with a vote or any freedom.

      That was one of the shortest conversations about politics we ever had. I got to the point where I was done trying to convince people that my beliefs were the right ones in college. And of course I believe my beliefs are the right ones. If I didn’t, I would have other beliefs. I’m fine with educating someone, but I don’t see the point of arguing with someone who refuses to accept reality. I just try to annoy those people.

      I’ve got a friend who is a leftie. She brought up fake news, so I went on a rant about Dan Rather and some of the other well known leftie media fake news. She realized she was not on the winning side and declared the conversation over. Every couple of pauses in the conversation, I would bring up another instance. Then I just started saying “fake news.” Now I occasionally greet her with “fake news.” When someone declares a conversation that they brought up over because they don’t want to admit that they are wrong, the last thing I’m going to do is let it go when I can get my argument down to a two word short hand and have fun every time I mention it. I’m perfectly willing to browbeat an opinionated moron.

      • I have a friend who is, of all things, a professor of physics. Real smart, real nice and a damn fine pool player but you get a few drinks in him and he will NOT shut up about Donald Trump and Trump supporters. He turns into a human version of a whole series of HuffPo pieces about DJT.

        So, about a week ago I dedicated a tab in my phone’s browser to a specific video on YouTube. Now, if he starts talking about that stuff I pull out my phone, pull up that tab, hit play and he gets this (along with the rest of us, and sometimes the rest of the bar, singing along really poorly):

        • Nice idea, since it’s gonna likely be in a loud, crowded bar, the one with the lyrics and the bouncing ball sing-along might be a better choice.

          Just say’in…

        • I am capable of holding two thoughts in my head: Gun control is onerous, and Donald Trump is an embarrassing buffoon who needs to be kicked out of office as soon as possible.

          Ordinarily I would say “I am capable of holding two seemingly contradictory thoughts in my head”, but I don’t see how one thought contradicts the other in the slightest.

        • Geoff: No need when you can just pause the jukebox.


          I wasn’t discussing gun control nor was I commenting on the merits or demerits of the current POTUS or my own opinions thereof. I was merely commenting on the overarching topic of people who prattle on about the same nonsense again and again to no real end.

          So, I’m not really sure what the relevance of your comment here is but thanks for making it clear that you can hold opinions on two completely different and basically unrelated subjects at the same time without feeling the need for those two opinions to somehow relate to each other.

    • “Oh, and also, two for three on fatalities kinda puts the lie to the arguments advanced by The_Resistance doesn’t it?”

      Strych, don’t encourage that FLAME DELETED by referring to it by what it wants you to refer to it.

      Belittle it. Just refer to it as “resistance”, if at all.

      Never capitalize its little name. Mock it mercilessly by belittling it…

        • “YOU ARE NOT A PROPER NOUN!!!”

          I used to dream about being properly educated in writing skills, while I was asleep in English class… 🙂

        • That’s either an interesting commentary on how we process stimuli while sleeping or it’s absolutely horrific.

          Eh, maybe a bit of both… depending on if you had a hot English teacher or not.

  19. I hate how the try to claim a moral high ground with their position while we are heartless monsters who only care about “muh guns cuz Merica.” I also hate how we are also labeled as stupid racist rednecks who are compensating for something.

  20. About that POS who slaughtered the two good Samaratins –

    The Portland Patch article referenced in the OP says this about the murderer – “Christian is a known right wing extremist and white supremacist”

    Only one *tiny* problem with that:

    “Portland Attacker Jeremy Christian Was A Bernie Supporter”

    Who’d thunk it? Another murderous nut-job Leftist…

    (EDIT – Breaking – 8 dead in Mississippi including one Sheriff Deputy –

    • “‘I ain’t fit to live, not after what I done,’ a handcuffed Willie Corey Godbolt, 35, told The Clarion-Ledger.” Now just plead guilty on the condition that you’re executed and waive all appeals.

  21. Oregon is a shall-issue state, with statewide preemption, and there are approximately 64,000 CCW holders in the Portland metropolitan area. Portland does have a prohibition on loaded guns in public, but that does not apply to CCW holders.

    While I agree that in some locales regulations can be burdensome, there is no practical reason that two respectable Portland residents with either American citizenship or Permanent Residence Status could not have been carrying loaded concealed firearms. The only reason these two people are dead was that they didn’t want to carry guns in the first place.

    • That’s not the only reason. Another, larger, reason is someone decided to murdered them.

    • Knife range on crowded commuter train with total psycho. It is going to suck even if your are carrying.

    • At most one person would have gotten hurt or killed, and the perpetrator would most likely have their brains blown out.

      • IdahoBoy (an apt handle no doubt; for you have a long way to go to reach manhood) since you denigrate President Trump so much (he did win the election you know) can you understand that had Hellory and the Dastardly DimWit DummyCrats won you would, in keeping with your mentality, now have only have one thought to process at the time. For your 2ND AMENDMENT “RIGHTS”, DAMNIT – – -” RIGHTS” – – – would have gone the way of a Idaho gale blowing across the Rockies in a winter storm . . .
        Pathetic ! ! !

  22. The perpetrator of this crime was both previously convicted of kidnapping and had to literally be shot in the face by police to stop him from whatever other kind of stupid insanity he’d been up to before he went on to do this evil deed……

    This guy should have been in the custody of those who could keep him from getting guns, knives, sporting equipment, cars, household chemicals, etc,etc………..

    What we need is more -common sense- when dealing with dangerous/broken people, not more “gun control”.

    What pisses me off the most about gun control is how it is nothing but an extension of weapons laws that historically have been used to control conquered or subservient classes of people, from the caste system of Feudal Japan and the people of conquered nations like the Scots (who were prohibited weapons by the English), to the first acts of such laws by post-slavery reconstruction era states in America which were aimed at depriving newly freed people of arms, to the reuse of Wiemar-era weapons laws meant to disarm radical political groups but yet were amended and used by the nazis to persecute their political opponents………

    But the left wants to tell me its for “public safety”.

    No, locking dangerous people up (like this clown in the story) is for public safety.

    Gun control is for control over oppressed people and doesn’t have any effect on public safety.

    This GREAT LIE about what weapons laws are all about is what angers me the most……..

  23. Your daily reminder that when someone uses the phrase “hate crime”, what they really mean is “thoughtcrime”.

    • You can think anything you like, but once you start attacking people because of what they think, then there is an issue.

  24. I think the recent coronor’s report into the Sydney Lindt Cafe siege made clear that us “civilians” are collateral damage and untintended consequences to flawed doctrine and procedure. The police did not force entry until AFTER 10 minutes a shot was fired at fleeing hostages and ONLY when the cafe manager was murdered.

    The life of the terrorist was considered more important. Progressivism at its finest.

  25. 1. What zoss said. Gun control (and other weapons laws) is (are) class warfare. Whether it was Catholics in England or Blacks in the Jim Crow South (or 70’s California). Now it is mostly just against people who are not fantastically wealthy and/or politically connected. There aren’t too many laws that out and out prohibit any weapon in America. Most have exceptions that are for certain classes of people or that cost a lot more than most people are willing to pay. Furthermore, people in gated communities with constant police patrols and great police response times don’t need firearms for self defense even half as much as the poor in “under-served” communities.

    2. At least 3/4ths of the arguments for gun control by anyone claiming to be any sort of expert on the subject are inexcusably ignorant, extremely stupid, or outright lies (in order of least to most likely). The same goes for the remaining 1/4th except just substitute regular stupid for extremely stupid.

    3. It kills people. (Yep. That’s only number three on my list).

    4. It inconveniences me.

    5. It has no measurable social benefit.

    6. It creates economic waste.

    • TY.

      Lets not forget that gun control places an undue burden on the exercise of a fundamental, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, unalienable human right.

      As a lawyer, I’m sure you know that when the government cannot prove that what its doing regarding regulating or restricting a right actually serves a purpose for public safety, its not legit(let alone the crystal clear meaning of the words “shall not be infringed”, which aren’t found in the text of any other enumerated right).

      Its long past time for the reality to be acknowledged, that gun control laws which place an undue burden on the exercise of our rights have no measurable effect on public safety, and hence are illegitimate on the grounds of modern precedent let alone the clear intent and meaning of the Second Amendment itself.

      (PS- feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, I’m no lawyer.)

      • You are not wrong. (Well, technically it doesn’t have to be public safety, its a substantial or compelling government “interest,” which could be a lot of things). I’d probably have put that at 4 or 5 on the list if I had thought about it at the moment. I’m sure there are plenty of other reasons to hate gun control.

        • Look up the video “Innocents Betrayed” on youtube for some more of those reasons to hate gun control.

          • I think that video falls under my numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. Especially 3. I’m quite aware of the fact that a key strategy of tyrants is to disarm the population they wish to abuse. Catholics, Jews, Native Americans, Blacks, everyone in a society. The only thing that changes is the size of the group and the effectiveness of the disarmament.

            Gun control at its heart is, like all government overreach, about power. It is just much clearer with gun control because the gun is such a visceral example of power. Everyone, whether they admit it or not, understands that a gun grants the holder a great deal of power. Literally the power of life and death. This power is neither good nor evil; it just is. Anyone who tries to remove this power from the citizenry, or put road blocks in their way, is centralizing power in the hands of government. Anyone who does this cannot be trusted with any power. Anyone who does not do this is at worst an incompetent tyrant.

            • You got it !

              Weapons laws have always been, throughout history, about one group of people having power over the other.

    • “Gun control (and other weapons laws) is (are) class warfare.”

      Exactly. Progressives claim that all they want is “fair re-distribution of wealth”.

      As Obama famously told ‘Joe the plumber’, “Spread the money around”.

      Except that isn’t the end result.

      Their goal is equal distribution of misery via poverty…

  26. I HATE arguments for gun control based on feelings rather than facts, and arguments based on distorted logic or zero logic.

  27. Aside from the obvious “…shall not be infringed…”

    what I hate most is the hypocrisy. Hollywood types that preach while making tons of money for movies with guns, carve outs for cops and ex cops, politicians that support stricter gun laws while enjoying the protection of armed security.

  28. I love gun control. I practice it every day and consider it a necessity of good marksmanship. Oh you mean anti-2A. That’s why I practice!!!

  29. Gun control is the ultimate triumph of make believe over observed reality.

    We KNOW:
    * Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
    * Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
    * Police not assigned as bodyguards have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.

    Gun control: We don’t have to protect you and we won’t let you protect yourself.

  30. jwm says:
    May 28, 2017 at 12:25
    “It absolutely is a hate crime if the only reason the attack is happening is the race or religion of the victim.”

    So then what happens when the “hate” crimes start happening to people with blond hair and brown eyes?
    Does it entail a whole new type of crime?

    • In Chicago, it’s a hate crime. 5/5 pundits and prosecutors agree. Ok. The guy was white and retarded. Close enough to the point you’re making.

  31. We have to do it “for the children”
    Lawmakers and politicians making up laws when the don’t know straight up about firearms.
    Like for instance here in OR. every time they dream up “the gun law to end all gun laws” they cook up another one
    that’s full of holes as the last one.

    • Because the 2 people he killed wouldn’t be as dead?

      Maybe he should have used a rental truck instead, huh?


      As a martial artist of over 20 years, with a special study of knives, the ignorance of people who think that somehow, a knife is less deadly then a firearm, especially in quarters as close as these were in a train car, never ceases to astound me.

      Firearms are a very recent (historically speaking) weapon, before them, edged weapons were the primary personal arm and were used to kill likely hundreds of billions of people, so don’t even start with the nonsense about how a gun would have “made this worse”.

      I mean, really. What a load of vapid horse puckey.

      Two people were brutally murdered by a lunatic with a knife, but at least the crime wasn’t committed with my pet phobia, a firearm!

      Get a real argument.

      The REAL shame of this is that its too bad liberal buttwipes have warped our justice system so that convicted kidnappers who have had to be dealt with by the police that they’ve previously been shot in the face by them are set free time and time again till they pull a stunt like this.

      Its the maniac, not the tool they use thats the problem, and until we get serious about dealing with them, this will continue to happen- no matter what inanimate object you want to blame.

      • PS-

        Aside from gun control being championed by genocidal dictators, tyrants, slavers, and other scum the world over- one of the things I hate most about gun control are the brain addled mental cases that are so focused on firearms when they are misused, that they can’t even see past this to the REAL problem, and they attempt to monopolize the discussion with their own little pet phobia to the degree that we can’t ever get to talking about what that REAL PROBLEM actually is-

        The maniac wielding the weapon.

        Doesn’t matter what that weapon is.

        Unless, of course, you have a mental hang up on some inanimate object and/or a political agenda to chase after…….

  32. For me, it is the fact that the places where you may need a means of self protection are the places where conceal carry is banned. I once lived in Oregon, worked in Portland, and commuted via Max. Contrary to the propaganda the liberal fascist spew, the Max is often dangerous. It is a transportation tool for criminals. A few years ago, police in outlying cities started riding the Max because Portland Police were not doing their job. Crime within 1/2 mile of the Max was so high, these cities were forced to step in even though it wasn’t their responsibility to patrol the trains. And guess what, CCW for law abiding citizens on the Max is illegal.

      • Sorry, use of the Army as law enforcement within the borders of the US is prohibited under the Constitution. As it should be, I did not need Osama directing the Army to secure the polling places during the election to preclude those damn republican terrorists from casting their nasty conservative votes, potentially stopping his third term.

        • Quote———————–There is a good argument to be made that he Vietnam War was started by, and at the behest of, Senator/President JFK in the attempt to convert a majority Bhuddist country (85+%) to Catholicism or kill them in the attempt, using the US military as the “Christian soldiers”, at the behest of JFK’s father after urging by Francis Cardinal Spellman. Calling Billy Graham names, while entirely welcome to me in general, in this case is not justified, he was correct.—————————quote—————

          Brother that is the most wacked out statement I have ever read about the Vietnam War and about J.F.K. Sounds like something Billy Graham would have conjured up when he hit the bottle too hard one night. Your story is so laughable I will not even comment on it any further.

          The Vietnam war was in response to the cold war between Russia, China and the U.S. and it was also a power play for control of the Far East which the U.S. has been engaged in since Commodore Perry Invaded Japan in the mid 1800’s followed by the U.S. invasion of China in 1896 and its invasion of the Philippian Islands in 1899. All over greed, power and money which is why most wars are fought.

          I might add that President Kennedy realized early on what a mistake he had made and was in the process of withdrawing all troops from Nam when he was assassinated and it would not surprise me some day if the truth eventually came out about who was really behind his assassination but I will not go into that its too long a story.

          And lets not forget it was Nixon that deliberately prolonged the Nam war for over 5 years which resulted in an additional 25,000 U.S. combat deaths and well over another additional 1 million Vietnamese deaths. Recent evidence has surfaced that Nixon even committed treason because he sent General Chennault’s wife, then residing in the U.S., to deliberately lie to the North Vietnamese as to Presidents Johnsons intentions to end the war before he left office so as to sabotage the Peace Conference to the end of the war. Watergate seems to pale in comparison to this act of treason and the mass death and destruction he caused because of it.

  33. The Portland case is an example of righteous liberals attempting to stop someone from voicing his opinion and being ill-prepared for handling the consequences.

    Let’s be really clear about what was happening. The stabber—a rare combination of racist and Bernie supporter–was saying mean things to some Muslim women(and others) on a train. That’s the extent of it. He was SAYING things.There is no report he was physically attacking said women, or even making any attempt to. No, he was saying mean things and generally being an asshole. The three Portland liberals took it upon themselves to close distance with him and stop him from doing so—and the nut stabbed them.

    i’m not saying he was right to stab them, although three on one might well be a an act of justifiable self defense. No, I’m saying MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS unless you are capable of ending a fight your actions may start. Let’s be clear—there is no indication any stabbing would have happened if they hadn’t gotten involved. He didn’t get done stabbing the men and then turn his attention to the Muslim women.

    I find it kind of ironic these people were killed defending the honor of Muslim women, when Muslim women are treated as chattel in their own culture.


    • So, if a middle eastern guy starts spouting off at a couple of blond haired, blue eyed white girls on a bus you would just let him express himself?

      • A prudent person would recognize that the best course of action would be to notify the authorities of the disturbance ASAP, and unless it escalated, not involve themselves…… just sayin’ .

        • But old jean claude would be incensed if it was white girls getting harassed. He’s only pulling the stupid self defense angle for the dummy with the knife cause the girls was muslims.

          • And I’m incensed that the dangerous convicted kidnapper who’d been so out of control he had to be shot by the police in the face was set free to pull this stunt.

            BTW- Muslim isn’t a race. So calm down….

            • I don’t know zoss. The way I hear it, even gay is a race these days.

              People don’t have any respect for what words actually mean.

      • Unless the threat of violence is made, I’m watching the guy and minding my own business. Now, I would be READY to act, but I’m not walking up to a ranting nutjob and stopping him from hit rant.

        He might be waiting to stab someone.

        Get it? Engaging someone’s who’s crazy enough to scream and rant at total strangers on a train is a stupid thing to do.

  34. Being Liar’s, Coward’s with a moral compass so twisted it’s rotting the fabric of our society and country, especially the Democratic Party, politicizing the IRS, BLM, NSA, and using it against the people of the USA, allowing unfettered evil religions and radical aliens into our country, giving away my rights for their piece of mind, giving Money, housing, medical to non citizens of this country when own real citizens cannot get same, they take no pride in our country and want us to be mindless serfs and not think for our selves, so they have control like Soros and Bloomberg! Biggest rift in this country is the Democratic Party they do nothing but obstruct, they help pass no laws, but sure show up on payday and for the perks! Feather their nest’s and spout their own horn about how good they are!

  35. The article missed point on the “why it happened” and that is that Herr Trump has fostered a climate of hate in this country against not only Muslims, but Refugees, Immigrants, Jews, Blacks, Latinos and just about anyone else that is not White Anglo Saxon and Protestant (Catholics are not welcome either by the Far Right). This has not been seen since the rabid racism of the early 20th Century. Of course I am not technically correct because Benjamin Franklin stated that the great immigration of Germans to the U.S. after the Revolutionary War would destroy America forever. Of course today that statement sounds ridiculous because there are far more people of German Descent here than English. But you get the picture on racism in the U.S. and how far back in time it goes.

    Of course I take no issue with the fact that yes, one of the men who tried to come to the rescue or all of the men that did would still be alive if they had simply gunned down the deranged right wing racist that attacked the two girls just because one of them was wearing a hijab and was therefore considered sub-human and not an America by the right wing racist nut case that attacked them. Videos show him at various far right wing demonstrations fostering hate and bigotry. I am sure the Far Right secretly regards him as a great patriot and some even not so secretly. After all they will say its open season on all American Muslims even teenage girls.

    Of course when dealing with “Tribes” today they are no different today than when Neanderthal Man was annihilated by Homo Sapiens for today we have 21st Century weapons in the hands of “Naked Apes” that are no more qualified to have them as they are to have spears or hand axes in their hands. And I find it ironic that this Neanderthal which obviously escaped extinction had a knife in his hand. I think human evolution stagnated after Neanderthal Man evolved.

    • Uhhh—he was asked to leave Trump rallies,and his online rants show he supported Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein.

      Your move,Cisco. You’re no friend of mine.

          Here is another article proving he fully supported the Far Right and that his on line rants supported Adolf Hitler and he hated Jews as well as Blacks and Muslims.

          True at that particular Right Wing Parade they did not want him there but they not because they did not agree with him. His rhetoric is the same racial filth that you find on many far right wing web sites.

        • Racist, Nazi, use of the N-word. All things that have been supported or done by the Democrats and/or those on the left. Republicans have historically been the party to fight racism, and Democrats have historically been the party to support racism. That is still the case today. Identity politics is racism and additional forms of bigotry.

          The claim that racism is a feature of the right is a lie. It is a feature of the left.

          • Wake up Rip Van Winkle. Its not the days of Abraham Lincoln its 2017 and Herr Trump played the “race card” to win the election. His spewing of right wing racist hatred of Latino’s and Muslims, Immigrants and Refugees was like music to the ears of the Far Right.

            When Herr Trump tried to Ban Muslims from travel to the U.S. it was not the Far Right out protesting in front of air ports as the Far Right was no where to be seen.

            When a racist bakery would not sell a cake to two Gay men or when Gay and Lesbian couples applied for marriage licenses it was not a Far left Woman that refused to give them a license but a Far Right Fanatic.

            Multitudes of Right Wing Web Sites are filled with hatred of all of the above and most throw in even White Catholics for good measure. It was Billy Graham, a right wing racist if there ever was one that personally went to talk to key Congressmen warning that if John F. Kennedy got elected he would turn the U.S. into a Catholic Caliphate. Today the Catholics have only been partially replaced with the new boggy man the American Muslim. Tell me the Far Right is not Racist and I am sure the Far Right will burn a cross in your yard and take away your KKK card and bar you from membership in the White Supremacists groups, every one which supports the Republican Party. France’s Le Pen counter part and worshiper of Herr Trump ranted Herr Trumps viewpoints in her run for the Presidency. A Muslim hater just as Herr Trump is. Again Tell me the Far Right is not Racist I need a good laugh.

            And when Herr Trump was found to keep the book “Mein Kampf” by his bed side it was not written by a Liberal that is for sure but the far right fanatic Adolph Hitler which the Far Right often wave his Nazi Flag right along side the Confederate Flag at Right Wing Rallies. Again Tell me the Republicans are not supported by these people when they all voted for Herr Trump.

            • Interesting to see that gays are a race. I did not know that. And it was Obama, not the right, who persecuted a group of old nuns for their religious beliefs. The far right might say something mean about Catholics on the internet. The Democratic president took a Catholic religious order to the Supreme Court to suppress their religious beliefs. I’m sure the KKK would never let me join.

              I’d normally refrain from making a personal attack, but since you accused me of being in the KKK, I’ll make an exception. You are a moron and a liar. Your argument is full of ridiculous statements such as implying gays are a race, all Muslim countries are failed states overrun by terrorists, etc. Then their are the outright lies and half truths. You also base your claims on what is said on “far right” websites. Even if that is a correct characterization of the website’s political alignment, it doesn’t matter. The fringe is on the outside of the mainstream. It’s not like Trump was hanging out with far right terrorists like Obama did with far left terrorists. You don’t cite a single thing that actual Republicans have done in office that is racist. (You did make up a story about Trump trying to ban all Muslims, which is why you are a liar). You did however point out that a Democrat county clerk refused to issue a marriage license to homosexuals. You are a moron and a liar.

              • But didn’t you know?

                Everyone who disagrees with the tolerant, peaceful left and their insane BS is an evil nazi klansman in league with russia……..

                Sick of this crap.

                I normally do not feed trolls nor do I engage in internet flame wars, either.

                That all being said, trollboy mcmediamattersface here is displaying for us all the very REASON why Trump is now POTUS.

                And they -STILL- just do not get it………

                Keep at it liberals.

                You’ll GIVE Trump his second term………

              • I usually just ignore all the trolls’ posts (and anyone with capslocks on), but I was avoiding laundry and was struck by the stupidity.

              • quote—————-You are a moron and a liar. Your argument is full of ridiculous statements such as implying gays are a race, all Muslim countries are failed states overrun by terrorists, etc. ——————quote—————-

                You can use semantics to dodge the truth but the truth is the gays have been discriminated by the Republican Party for decades which by the way if you had ever bothered to read the Constitution is clearly a violation of it that is exactly why the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Lighting up the White House with the Gay Flag Colors was far more than just a tribute to them but was symbolic of Constitutional Rights. You as a Right Wing Fanatic seem to think you can pick and chose which Constitutional Rights other Americans should have while reserving all of it only for your own tribe.

                As far as Muslim Countries being failed states it is you not I that are totally ignorant when it come to Middle East History. They in the past made great advancements in science and mathematics all of which you obviously know nothing about, par for the course with Right Wing Fanatics. And today the current Mess in the Middle East goes all the way back to WWI and the idiots in France and Britain and the boundaries they drew up after the war. And the U.S. Gulf Wars were the height of idiocy that caused the current troubles there. Pointing the fingers at Middle East states only results in your other 3 fingers pointing right back at your own ignorance of history.

                Then their are the outright lies and half truths. You also base your claims on what is said on “far right” websites. Even if that is a correct characterization of the website’s political alignment, it doesn’t matter. The fringe is on the outside of the mainstream. It’s not like Trump was hanging out with far right terrorists like Obama did with far left terrorists. You don’t cite a single thing that actual Republicans have done in office that is racist. (You did make up a story about Trump trying to ban all Muslims, which is why you are a liar). You did however point out that a Democrat county clerk refused to issue a marriage license to homosexuals. You are a moron and a liar.—————-Quote——————-

                Herr Trumps Muslim Ban was condemned as such by every major news network on the planet including the BBC, France24News, DWM News, MSNBC, and even NHK News.

                And the Republicans stood behind the racist lady that refused to grant Marriage Licenses to Gays and even sent a representative there to support her outrageous behavior.

        • There is a good argument to be made that he Vietnam War was started by, and at the behest of, Senator/President JFK in the attempt to convert a majority Bhuddist country (85+%) to Catholicism or kill them in the attempt, using the US military as the “Christian soldiers”, at the behest of JFK’s father after urging by Francis Cardinal Spellman. Calling Billy Graham names, while entirely welcome to me in general, in this case is not justified, he was correct.

    • As a Jew who voted for Trump (because look at the alternative, liberals. THATS why Trump MAYBE, just MAYBE, you should have run someone a little less likely to be as universally loathed and with good reason) I’d like to get my little 2 cents in here to remind everyone that the Nazi’s were socialists(I can source multiple quotes from them espousing not only socialism, but Marx as well), and even still this is all besides the point as attempting to draw a shallow parallel between what happened in Germany 75 years ago and modern American politics is BS and does a grave injustice to history.

      I wish leftists would take a note from their own playbook, quit misappropriating history (my Jewish history) and stop calling everyone they don’t like Hitler.

      Its ridiculous and the ad hominem (ad hitlarum, its a real thing, look it up) just shows you don’t have a REAL argument with any merit.

      Lastly, were talking about a nutbag who had previously been convicted of kidnapping and had to be shot in the face by the police to make him stop doing something bad.

      His politics are hardly main stream or even relevant.

      The only political aspect that IS relevant is a discussion on why we continue to allow liberal politicians to dictate to us where and in what manner we may defend ourselves from these types of people that seem to always be released -by liberals- back onto the streets after perpetrating crimes like kidnapping and having to be dealt with by the police so harshly.

      This guy should have been locked up.

      He wasn’t.


      • I think that trying to associate Hitler with our views of Socialism and Liberalism is the height of pure nonsense. True, Hitler inherited Socialistic Programs from Bismarck and for political reasons dared not reverse history but when he supported what he called “National Socialism” it had a far different meaning than what Socialism has here in the U.S. Hitler actually fought with Unions over the right to strike and he certainly was not a liberal when it came to persecuting minorities in Germany that has always been a hall mark of the Far Right Conservatives which Hitler certainly was, perhaps the ultimate Conservative. Hitler even banned the music “Jazz” because it was “modern” and therefore depraved in his twisted right wing view. Remember when the Far Right in the U.S. tried to ban “Rock and Roll” as being Un-American.

        Even Stalin who was a Socialist was not Liberal in any sense of the Word either but politically a far right winger himself who tolerated no decent and absolute obedience to absolute authority like Hitler did. But Stalin’s difference was that he murdered people not because of their race like Hitler did but because he killed anyone and every one who might be a threat to his power no matter if they were liberal or conservative or what race they may have been.

        Again trying to equate Socialism in Europe to what Socialism means here in the U.S. just is not reality. Socialism in Europe does not automatically mean Liberalism in any sense of the world. As much of a Right Wing Fanatic that Le Pen is in France she would not have even thought about eliminating the many Social Programs France has but would indeed have persecuted all minorities which is true to her far right wing conservative ideology.

        And Remember it was Hitler and Goebbels who refused to shake hands with minorities. Hitler left the Olympics early because he did not want to shake hands with Jessie Owens and Goebbels refused to shake hands with all Jews. None of that has anything to do with European Socialism rather it has to do with the hate ideology of the conservative far right.

        I think trying to compare U.S. politics to European Politics and their idea of what Socialism as compared to our ideas of Socialism is to explore often two very different worlds..

        One thing is for certain though and that is the Far Right in the U.S. certainly agrees with Hitler’s racism and hate as their rhetoric mimic’s Hitlers ideology lock step. It is not an aberration or a mistake that people in the KKK, White Supremacist Groups and the American Nazi Party all support the Republican Party. I might add you will find no left wing liberals in these groups and that mostly includes the Tea Party as well and they certainly do not vote Democrat.

        • Wait a minute.

          Did you just say that Trump had a copy of Mein Kamph in his bedside stand?

          Take a moment between writing kooky screeds in a lame attempt at trolling and go take a look in the mirror.

          See the loony moonbat who thinks American liberals are actually liberal, and not socialist totalitarian bullies who can’t accept that other people might disagree with their agendas, so he calls them all hitler and nazi’s and all that?

          ………….and now you know why Trump is president.

          • Actually the story of Trump and Hitler’s book at his beside is true and came right from an interview from MSNBC News with Herr Trump’s ex-Wife. Herr Trump to my knowledge never denied it either.

        • …….but radical leftist openly associating with, accommodating, and encouraging the cop killing BLM, who in the past have been associated with the Weather Underground, Symbionese Liberation Front, etc,etc- the violence from that side is ok, right?


          BTW- the KKK was founded by southern DEMOCRATS.

          Get your history right before you embarrass yourself.

      • Actually I never stated who started the KKK and remember it was started way back in the early 20th century. We are now speaking of what is going on today not back then and the KKK today many times has supported the Republican Party. And if you want to speak about the past the Southern Democrats in the early 20th century were not very chummy with Northern Democrats and their political viewpoints were often tied to the Republicans not the Democrats of that era. It is you that are embarrassing yourself not me.

        • Thats why Robert Byrd, known far and wide as a former member of the klan, died in office a democrat in 2009.

          You are embarrassing yourself because you think -like all of your ilk do- that you have a monopoly on pointing the finger at everyone else and hollering about bigotry and violence.

          You don’t.

          In fact, your side has been so nasty and so violent lately that you’ve provoked the cold blooded murder of police.

          Own it.

      • quote—————-And lastly, don’t take this the wrong way, but how much does David Brock pay you?————-quote

        Actually he does not pay me anything but I wish he would, as I could use the money “chuckle” but in all seriousness if Brock can switch sides from being a radical right winger to a radical left winger then there is indeed hope for the future of mankind, especially the working people of this world.

        • Also the thing about mein kamph?

          Supposedly it was a different book, of hitlers speeches.

          And if you think for one minute that I believe this -considering the source was the guys ex wife…. then you haven’t been thru a divorce before LOL!

          I’ll tell you what tho-

          Like everything else your insane delusional side is on about these days which are nothing but smoke and mirrors conspiracy theories-

          show me PROOF of it.

          ain’t got nothing but a left-wing rag hit piece and a disgruntled person as a “source”?


  36. What do I hate about gun control? It is all a lie. All of the gun control arguments are based on different forms of deception – lies, half-truths, cherry-picked data, ignoring contradictory facts, debunked research, anecdotal evidence, logical fallacies, and emotional responses. Gun control can not survive the pure light of reality.

    • So its advocates use deception, misdirection, and the ignorance of the masses to get their ineffective and sometimes dangerous gun control laws passed.

  37. The phrase “assault rifle”! Or people thinking, saying or arguing AR stands for said phrase.

    • I was at a party this weekend where a guy said “clip where he was clearly talking about a magazine. I corrected him. He said he knew but liked to irk people. I smiled, said I didn’t believe him, and that I just thought he was dumb. (I did believe him, which is why I had to be irksome back).

      • I love debating with you its almost too easy to point out your consistent ignorance on just about every subject you trip yourself up on. The world Clip is correct as the U.S. Military was using it in 1911 in their first training manuals to descript the feeding device used in the then new 1911 .45 ACP pistol. The interchangeability of clip and magazine actually predated that but it is proved beyond any doubt with the training manual.

        Just because a word at one time or another was not in the dictionary such as the word “ain’t” does not mean it is not in reality a word when millions of people use it. And when they do it usually does eventually find its way into the dictionary. Not that it is even today considered to be a word to be used by most intellectuals but never the less is still a word. Language is dynamic and forever being modified and changed and being dogmatic only points out how little you know of it, especially when it comes to the Clip v/s Magazine controversy which was detailed recently by the American Rifleman Magazine, which I am sure you being to cheap to belong to the NRA naturally never read the article.

Comments are closed.