Previous Post
Next Post


“Those who work and volunteer in the gun violence prevention movement—including victims and survivors of gun violence—are frequently targets of harassment, intimidation and even violent threats by those on the other side of the issue,” the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) maintains. “Things Pro-Gun Activists Say takes this abuse—which too often occurs behind the scenes and without any type of consequences—and airs it publicly for all to see. Our hope is that this type of behavior will be deterred in the future.” Or is it . . .

Like most single-issue organizations, demonization is an integral part of the CSGV’s life-sustaining agit-prop. You can’t have a CSVG without the NRA. (And, it should be said, vice versa.) Or maybe you can.

In fact, the CSVG doesn’t tilt at the NRA windmill much, preferring to pick on the low-hanging fruit: snide and snarky pro-gun folk who’re [more] easily characterized as stupid, racist, violent psychopaths. And thus pilloried and diss-missed.

The content of this blog includes actual phone calls, emails and web comments from pro-gun activists and will be supported by screen caps, audio clips, and other evidence. [Please be warned that the content of this blog is frequently profane, violent and of a disturbing nature.]”

Am I the only one who considers it ironic that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence labels pro-gun free speech as an attack on their free speech while censoring all negative comments on their Facebook page, and then selects deleted comments to re-publish in their campaign condemn pro-gun commentators?

So here’s what’s got their knickers in a twist today:

Pro-gun activists have a funny way of observing Presidents Day. Two days ago, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence posted the following photo and status update to our Facebook page to wish everyone a wonderful Presidents Day weekend:

Alabama pro-gunner Willis Peacock was quick to respond with a reference to the tragic 1865 assassination of President Abraham Lincoln:

maybe one shoulda owned a helmet…

Lincoln, of course, was shot in the back of head by John Wilkes Booth as he sat watching a play in the Presidential Box at Ford’s Theater.

Alabama residents can take great comfort in the knowledge that Peacock, like Booth before him, is walking the streets with a loaded handgun. Maybe you’ll even see him at the local Starbucks!

That’s it? Uh, wasn’t Lincoln a Republican? While we’re at it, why are the pro-gun control folks so humorless that they make a German Oberbürgermeister look like Groucho Marx? [Note to CSGV: das ist ein witz.]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. ****While we’re at it, why are the pro-gun control folks so humorless that they make a German Oberbürgermeister look like Groucho Marx? [Note to CSGV: das ist ein witz.*****

    The business of promoting tyranny is necessarily a grim one.

    • I’ve noticed that lack of humor too among leftist people who are really politically minded and/or advocate.

  2. If you “share” their link on your own Facebook page they are not able to sensor/delete the comment that you post with the “share”. And then it will still be there for all to see if they just click to view the “shares”

  3. It shows how low the IQ of their “friends” are that they had to explain that Lincoln was assisinated. Looking at their page I actually wanted to create a Facebook account. I didn’t bother since they would have just deleted all my posts and ignored the facts I posted.

  4. I like their post of:

    A great president on “Second Amendment remedies”:

    “It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.” – Abraham Lincoln, from his first inaugural address

    Interesting that Lincoln not only never mentioned anything about the 2a or guns in his inaugural address, but that he is clearly talking about the succession of States over the issue of slavery if you actually bother reading his address.

    • Since they interpret the 2A their way, Lincoln’s speeches are subject to interpretation as well. All part of the scam meant to sway soft minds to agree with them.

  5. Speaking as a relatively new reader, and one who isn’t in full agreement with most readers on 2a issues (all-around PITA contrarian); there really isn’t a better, more balanced, or more informative gun blog on the web than Mr. Farago’s. You won’t get a better education on gun issues than TTAG. Plus, its entertaining as hell…

  6. Well, considering they’re professional victims and mental children, is this kind of behavior really a surprise? Victimhood is how they validate themselves, so they look for every possible way to be victims, even laughable ways like this.

    Sounds to me like sour grapes over the utterly epic failure and reversal of their Starbucks event.

  7. Didn’t Washington once talk about the necessity of an armed populace? And wasn’t Lincoln a competant marksman? Bet the Brady’s forgot about those.

  8. “Uh, wasn’t Lincoln a Republican?”

    Yes, he was. As I understand that era, the Republicans back then were the party of what could be described as having more progressive values than other parties that were more traditional.

    It is interesting that historically, it was ‘usually’ progressive leaning governments that are in the White House when the US enters an existing or starts a new war:
    Civil War, WW1 (Wilson), WW2 (Roosevelt), Korea (Truman), Vietnam (Kennedy/Johnson). Now, we increasingly have political parties and politicians who are more internationalists and global elitists than American.

  9. “So here’s what’s got their knickers in a twist today”

    Sexist misogynistic disrespectful word usage. It must be banned. hhmff!

  10. There could not have been two Presidents more unlike each other than Washington and Lincoln. On the one hand, Washington could have been nearly a king, elected in perpetuity, and refused such power. On the other hand there’s Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus and the First Amendment and who killed more Americans than Hitler. Yet we honor them both equally.

    Lincoln’s near deification is a rather elegant proof that Churchill was correct: history is written by the victors.

    Oh, and for those who would honor Lincoln as the Great Emancipator, take note that when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he also offered all states “in rebellion” the opportunity to rejoin the Union and keep their slaves if they did so.

    • Washington was incredible as a General, and also incredible as a Statesman and a true patriot. If we had more leaders like him we would not be in the situation we are in now.

    • Yay! I was wondering when the pro-slavery/pro-treason crowd would show up with their anti-Lincoln rhetoric.

      • Yay! I was wondering when the pro-totalitarian / anti-freedom crowd would show up with their anti-Constitution rhetoric.

      • jkp,

        Having a discussion questioning the integrity of a historical American figure that has often been placed on a pedestal and the related facts of the historical record is treason in your view? If you had absolute power in America, what would you do with such people?

        Slavery was wrong, immoral, cruel, and evil. Indications are that the American institution of slavery was weakening and would probably have ended within about 20 years without the war. Somewhere between 500,000 to 600,000 men were killed in the Civil War fighting. Southern cities and farms were burned and devastated. Children starved. Families destroyed. Southern women raped by Union Soldiers. The Union was broken and the South oppressed for many years. Political power in America became centralized in a Federal Government and the states became servants of the feds. Fifty years later Americans were waging war in Cuba and the Philippines.

        • I can’t agree that slavery was dying out. I’ve heard that if the cotton gin hadn’t been invented, it would’ve died out. If the slaves weren’t doing agricultural work, they’d have been transitioned to manufacturing.
          I think it would always be more profitable to own workers instead of pay them. If you wait on economics to stop slavery, you’ll wait forever.

          • Apparently slavery remains a problem to this day. According to NPR news

            … the annual State Department report on human trafficking details a number of these instances around the world. Just to give a few: the Zambians girls trafficked to Ireland for commercial sexual exploitation, Filipina women trafficked to Cote d’Ivoire for commercial sexual exploitation, Vietnamese children trafficked to the U.K. for forced involvement in drug smuggling.

            It’s a dark side of human nature, preying on the defenseless. Note to self: avoid defenselessness.

        • Aharon,

          Here’s how I see it.

          I’m sick of hearing people who give lip service to the right to keep and bear arms self-righteously whitewash slavery, treason, and systematic denial of basic rights.

          I saw no reasonable critique of Lincoln in the post to which I replied – I saw nothing but the typical automatic (and juvenile) smears that tend to accompany his name in any firearms-related forum. (Straight to Godwin’s law, eh?) I would welcome a reasonable discussion of the merits of the Lincoln administration.

          Please explain what you refer to by “oppression” of the South.

          Was it the refusal of the federal government to accept the destruction of the Union via of the unilateral secession of certain states? Secession is not necessarily unconstitutional, but the unilateral manner in which it was attempted (no attempt was made to address the question at the federal level,) WAS. Breaking up a nation can be complicated (many questions of property ownership, public debt, currency, trade need to be dealt with,) and if it is to be successful and peaceful it needs to be done by mutual consent. What happens to property in the south owned by northerners — or vice versa? What happens to the right of navigation down the Mississippi River? What about federal property in the south? If Maryland and Virginia both secede, what happens to the District of Columbia? These questions may have simple resolutions, but they have to be resolved jointly to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected. That wasn’t even attempted by the slavery crowd.

          In the case of the Revolutionary War, repeated attempts were made by the Colonies to redress their grievances with the ‘national’ government in London. These efforts were ignored.

          In the case of the Civil War — where were the petitions to Congress about secession? Better question: what was the actual grievance??? Basically, Lincoln was elected and states started seceding. That was it. So: an anti-slavery president was elected, and so in response, the slaveholding states elected to unilaterally try to destroy a nation in a fit of pique. If that isn’t treason, I’m not sure what qualifies.

          Regarding the casualties of war, I have no more sympathy for the traitors in the South than I do for the British in 1783 or (wait for it…) the Germans or Japanese in 1945. When you decide on a course of war, you don’t get to whine afterward that you didn’t realize it was going to be that bad, and how terrible it was. Of course it’s terrible. It’s war. If you didn’t want that, perhaps you should’ve made more of an effort to resolve the differences peacefully.

          Regarding the occupation by the Union Army, it actually ENFORCED the Constitution and guaranteed the rights of black citizens after the war in the Southern states. So I guess it ‘oppressed’ the white Southerners in the sense that it didn’t allow them to oppress blacks for the duration of the occupation. Not a lot of sympathy there, either.

          In the period after Reconstruction ended, when the Army was withdrawn, the history of the traitors behind the Confederacy was whitewashed — and by the way, black people (and anyone else who sympathized with their cause,) were systematically oppressed legally, politically and economically for the next 90 years in the South.

          Regarding a powerful federal government, the slavery crowd, you may recall, thought a strong federal government was just fine as long as it was enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act, or fighting a war against Mexico to increase slaveholding territory.

          Do I endorse an overly powerful federal government? Of course not. But at the same time, I am not pleased with a weak and ineffective federal government that cannot protect the true rights of its citizens from oppression from infringement at the local level — and I’m talking about the REAL rights of speech or self-defense, or even just to keep the fruits of their own labor, or to keep their own children, which were systematically denied to blacks by the slave states and their fellow travelers.

          • You show your ignorance of history with your posts about Lincoln and the war of northern aggression. All you are doing is regurgitating the pap fed to you in publik skool. I would suggest you read Tom DiLorenzo’s book; “The real Lincoln” for some perspective. How has that big federal government done at protecting your rights for the last 100 years?

    • I addition to saying he’d let them keep their slaves if they came back, in that same personal letter Lincoln wrote to the leaders of the Confederacy, he stated that if they came back and acknowledged his supreme power, everything would be OK but if they refused he would destroy them.

      Lincoln was a power hungry bastard who used the Constitution as toilet paper.

      • “Lincoln was a power hungry bastard who used the Constitution as toilet paper”.

        Lincoln was a progressive.

      • He was a wartime President fighting an insurrection. He did what he had to do to keep the country from falling apart and most important, he was magnanimous in the Union victory. I’m Southern, and I’m glad he did what he did. I’m glad that we didn’t let slavery slowly die out over the next 80 years. I’m glad that the South had to reexamine and transform itself from the weakest to the strongest part of the country economically.
        I wasn’t aware that poor old Abe is now some kind of war-mongering, dictatorial villain. Maybe you guys just have too much time on your hands…

        • I wasn’t aware that poor old Abe is now some kind of war-mongering, dictatorial villain.

          There are probably a lot of things that you’re not aware of. Just add that one to the list.

          I don’t think that Lincoln was a war-mongering villain. Dictatorial, yes. Incompetent, yes.

          • Yet you compared him with Hitler. Like it was his fault the war was so bloody? I don’t mindlessly deify Lincoln or Washington. I respect both of them while accepting their faults without judgement. Lincoln made some mistakes, but calling him incompetent when he faced such a tough situation, came out on top, and got assassinated for it is over-the-top plain and simple. Washington was a great general, but he didn’t have much to govern when he was in power. The federal gov’t was weak as hell and still recovering from the Articles of Confederation debacle. His position was primarily symbolic… he was the old warhorse, who nobly chose to not become King… Thats great, but I don’t see how you can compare the two… their Presidencies were apples and oranges.
            Maybe the reason we don’t have more negative stuff on Washington’s Presidency was because it was before political factions/parties formed… so there wasn’t a dedicated opposition to dig up dirt on him.

            • “Lincoln made some mistakes, but calling him incompetent when he faced such a tough situation”

              A tough situation? Please, tell me where in the Constitution it forbids states from leaving peaceably if they so choose? That’s right – NOWHERE. He kept his troops stationed in a sovereign nation and then launched a brutal war (that was primarily designed to destroy civilians) when they tried to remove those invading troops from their soil.

              • I guess the Founders didn’t know that some states would throw hissy fits and quit on the document they had ratified less than 80 years later because the rich guys were worried that they’d lose all their valuable slaves (oops, I mean property). Now you’re going to tell me the War wasn’t about slavery, it was about State’s Rights!! Funny, cuz the very first paragraph of the Declaration of Secession makes it very clear that slavery is exactly what its about.

              • FLAME DELETED The whole issue was that the Federal government was trying to usurp power (like it keeps doing all the time) and was trying to ban slavery, which it had no Constitutional authority to do. Ergo, it was about States rights. FLAME DELETED

        • No. He created a war to prevent people from peacefully going their own way because he believed that he had the right to rule with an iron fist.

          “I wasn’t aware that poor old Abe is now some kind of war-mongering, dictatorial villain.”

          Try picking up some books and reading the letters he wrote with his own hand. This isn’t revisionist history, it’s the truth – in his own words.

          • Truth is that Lincoln did not fire the first shot. It was the pro-slavery insurrection that drew first blood at Ft. Sumter.

            • You mean the foreign troops that were stationed inside a sovereign nation? Holy rusted metal, Batman! A nation defending itself against a foreign invasion? That’s a ludicrous idea!

              Lincoln kept those troops there despite not having any authority to station them there. If he had kept his soldiers out of a sovereign nation, they wouldn’t have had to respond to the Union threat.

  11. “The 2nd Amendment… Washington didn’t use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.”

  12. Lincoln was no libertarian. I can see some of his points of view, but his disregard for individual liberties and a power hungry Federal government was unpardonable.
    I thought for the most part George Washington was a cool guy, but I think he and other plantation owners could have done more to end slavery.
    I always thought the original Declaration of Independence written by Jefferson was an interesting document.

  13. Am I the only one who considers it ironic that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence labels pro-gun free speech as an attack on their free speech while censoring all negative comments on their Facebook page,

    Liberals love free speech, as long as the sentiment goes their way, and the media is controlled by them.

  14. I live here down in Louisiana and every other day a child dies and most of the time are adults but its just so sick of it, when will it stop I’m tired of it and thanks to these supporters we can make the change.

Comments are closed.