Holmes: It’s Outrageous When Journalists Objectively Present Stories About Guns and Gun Owners

Previous Post
Next Post

What’s so unsettling about this Maryland incident, though, is that the adoption of a neutral stance [by reporters] legitimizes antisocial behavior and presents it as a fair form of “protest.” This guy does not have to point the gun at anyone for it to serve its purpose. This has been a steadily expanding problem throughout the country, as right-wingers show up heavily armed to statehouses in an explicit communication of the threat of deadly force if they do not get their way on matters of public policy.

This is not normal political expression, just as breaking windows and vandalizing businesses is not a legitimate form of protest against police violence and racial injustice in our society. The fact is that certain things are out of bounds, and we’re really arguing over where the line should be. This guy’s conduct is on the far side of the line. He is leaving the realm of civil disagreement and discussion and entering a gray area where the potential for deadly violence is implied.

What we’re really reluctant to confront, however, is that there is a sizable faction in America who continually make explicit threats to engage in violence if the government—elected by the people to make public policy—makes public policy that they and their faction do not like. They brandish their weapons during these discussions, physically or rhetorically, and they’re never more aggressive than when anyone suggests that Thomas Jefferson did not envision an inalienable right to carry an AR-15 into Chipotle.

It’s not hard to put all this together, particularly if you’re a reporter, but it’s scary to confront the fact that there’s a segment of the American population dedicated to the proliferation of deadly weapons—more guns, everywhere, all the time—and threatening to use the ones they already have if they don’t get their way. Easier, then, to stand to the side and offer the View From Nowhere, where every side has a case worth hearing.

— Jack Holmes in We Don’t Have to Accept Antisocial Gun Behavior Just Because the Guy Says It’s a Political Protest

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. ‘This guy does not have to point the gun at anyone for it to serve its purpose.’

    Wait, there’s somebody laying on the ground by his feet just out of the photo?!? Why did they crop this person out?

    • Sounds like gov. moore and his democRat Pals did something dirty called Gun Control. And since History Confirms Gun Control is Rooted in Racism and Genocide it is certainly a Call for Alarm.

      Unfortunately if you are on the street, on this forum or in a courtroom protesting Gun Control and fixated on what it does to you and your future then you wind up providing cover for the History of Gun Control which is the Death Nail for Gun Control…So try to think outside the box, sam.

      Gun Control zealots have thrown every concocted lie they could at The Second Amendment. If there’s a crime it’s the Second Amendment’s fault, etc. This tactic leaves Gun Owners running in circles and waiting and believing some court will come to their rescue.

      And while Gun Control zealots are on a daily smear campaign most Guns Owners stand around like Wildebeest watching the Second Amendment get eaten. When Gun Control zealots see no one defining Gun Control according to its History then Gun Control zealots feel emboldened and it’s business as usual.

      Make no mistake about it…Gun Control thrives on a Gun Control History illiterate public and Gun Owners who are Gun Control History illiterate.

        • Rep. Roy hasn’t introduced any pro-gun legislation in the House.

          This must mean that Pro-Gun Legislators do a lot of talking but what they will never, ever do is to introduce legislation that matters to their audience.

          Why is that, Debbie?

    • “A man with an AR-15 has been showing up for weeks to a school bus drop off for local elementary school students.
      Parents say their kids are afraid, the man says he’s protesting“

      Out here where I live, if some stranger showed up to parade around with an AR 15 down at the school bus stop, he’d get his ass beat.

      • Probably not a wise decision to be brandishing at a school bus stop. However, I seriously doubt that you’d be doing any ass beating.

      • “Out here where I live, if some stranger showed up to parade around with an AR 15 down at the school bus stop, he’d get his ass beat.”

        I’d pay good money to see that, Liar49er. It would be a repeat of Kyle Rittenhouse defending himself against attackers. How many bodies would be littering the ground around the law-abiding citizen? Of course you’d be leading the charge, amirite?


      • You would assault a guy with a loaded firearm?

        Is becoming internet famous the last item on your bucket list?

      • MajorLiar,

        “Out here where I live, if some stranger showed up to parade around with an AR 15 down at the school bus stop, he’d get his ass beat.”

        By whom, your boyfriend dacian the demented?? Certainly not by YOU, you p***y. You’re all hat and no cattle, MajorLiar.

  2. one guy at a bus stop, so let’s go all nuts and try to accuse every gun owner is this guy.

    • Well, wait a minute..
      What do you mean by “this guy?”
      As a protest, all he’s doing is carrying a gun. He’s not threatening anyone with it; Holmes admits that. What Holmes is saying is that Holmes sees an *implied* threat, one that isn’t actually made.
      What the guy with the gun is actually doing is demonstrating that the gun isn’t a threat.
      So, “this guy” is doing something that threatens no one, and demonstrates that fact in a way that speech can’t do.
      The fact that some people *feel* threatened doesn’t mean a threat was presented; it only means that some people took what happened, and applied their own fears to that action.
      The fact that I own guns doesn’t mean I will shoot someone, yet there are people who are certain it means just that. I’m not responsible for their unfounded fears, just like “this guy” isn’t responsible for Holmes’ fears.

      • Carrying it around in his hands ready to shoot can reasonably be considered as threatening. Had he been carrying it slung, that would not be reasonably considered threatening. This sort of exhibitionism is what motivates neutral people to think that restrictions on open carry may be a good idea.

        • “Carrying it around in his hands ready to shoot can reasonably be considered as threatening.”

          Spoken like a good little gun control advocate.

        • Driving in a car that can be used to kill multiple people can reasonably be considered as threatening?

      • you don’t recognize sarcasm?

        left wing journalism frequently takes an isolated thing like this and tries to imply its all gun owners doing it.

        • Some random person coming up to you and your children and making them uncomfortable with talking about his favorite sexual position? You cool with him making you uncomfortable doing that?

  3. “Journalism” has never been fair, neutral, objective, ethics-driver. All that is a myth of the 50s. Every news outlet, from before there was a US, had/has an agenda, delivered without apology.

    “Freedom of the press belongs to he who owns one.”

    • This guy is in Maryland??? I assume the boy doesn’t notice the hyper violent crime in Baltimore. That’d be raciss🙄🙃🥺

  4. “however, is that there is a sizable faction in America who continually make explicit threats to engage in violence if the government—elected by the people to make public policy—makes public policy that they and their faction do not like. They brandish their weapons during these discussions, physically or rhetorically, and they’re never more aggressive than when anyone suggests that Thomas Jefferson did not envision an inalienable right to carry an AR-15 into Chipotle.”

    define “sizable faction”….. if you compare it to the violenr radical militant trans movement and violent ANTIFA and the radical violent pro-abortion groups… that “sizable faction” is less than .005 % of those.

    • Better to demand to define “explicit threat.”
      Carrying a gun might be considered an ‘implicit’ threat, but to be an ‘explicit’ threat, something else must be done to clearly demonstrate that a threat exists other than simply carrying a gun. That someone attaches their own fears to that act doesn’t comprise a threat, implicit or explicit.

      • Define “heavily armed”. I assume anything more than a reusable metal drinking straw carried in a “man”purse.

        I suggest that the times are right for Jack Holmes to obtain the implant of male parts. Apparently many mentally ill guys wanting to become faux chicks. Lop them off.

    • Thomas Jefferson ate at Chipotle???

      I heard that George Washington ate there; but that was because Martha was not known for her cooking.

      • Similarly, I always brandish my weapon rhetorically. Whatever that was supposed to mean.

    • Define “elected by the people”. By my count a presidential election and a mid term have been either stolen or had so many questionable things go on that it should be thoroughly and publicly investigated.

  5. The “open carry in your face” crowd is often counterproductive, but this IS constitutionally protected activity whether Holmes likes it or not. It is true, however, that BLM had no right to vandalize, steal, and murder to get their way during their summer of mostly peaceful arson, so at least he got that right.

    It’s odd that Holmes clutches his pearls over one dopey guy at a bus stop who’s hurting nothing except his own cause, but gives only passing criticism to causes that are genuinely attempting to foment violent revolution in this country.

  6. To be honest, just because something is legal does not make it a good idea. Hauling around a rifle on the street or to some sort of political event may be legal, but may not demonstrate the best judgement. Open carry is legal down here. And, when out here on the farm, or in the small rural towns around here, no one really cares or notices. Go into a larger town or bigger city and have weapons on open display and some snowflakes for whatever reason feel you are a threat. But call other people with their weapons openly carried to handle the situation.
    These snowflakes and activist journalists seem to project their own ideas and fear on others. They know how they would react if someone disagrees with them or are afraid of what they might do and insist everyone else would do the same. Not understanding nor being able to comprehend most of us who regularly carry weapons do not just start blasting if we disagree with someone’s politics or don’t get our way. Nor are we looking for someone to shoot, or wanting to get involved in a gunfight. Sure, the implied threat is there. Even if people are completely unarmed, there can be the threat of violence. Strongarm tactics and bullying are commonplace in society. Haven’t the left been using just that threat of violence implied or actual in recent years with their ANTIFA/BLM demonstrations? Or their pro infanticide demonstrations? How about the recent” Trans Day of Rage”? Were these not threats of violence, or actual violent riots/demonstrations? But some guy with a rifle just standing around not pointing his weapon at anyone, nor saying anything is scary?

    • oldmaninAL,

      Do remember, a few months ago, the masked Antifas carrying AR15s outside of tranneeh child-grewming hag shows? Did you see any mainstream media decrying these folk as presenting an explicit threat or menace?

      Of course not.
      Only the peaceful folk on the right are a threat. The firebomb throwing, glass-breaking, store-looting, police car burning, random violence loving folk on the left are never a threat. Their hate makes them saintly.

      • Cuckservatives attacking open carry advocates are always willing to do the left’s job for them, while never noticing the same standards are not applied to the left.

    • TLDR: Bur your first ten words and reading the above article reminds me of every single anti-open carry Fudd. I support the 2a, but…when it makes me feels.

  7. So now, a guy doing nothing illegal, simply standing there day after day becomes a gray area?

    No, that’s not how it work, he either is, or is not breaking the law. He is NOT in this case. All the left has is what ifs. I saw this on Twitter and the comments were typical, how do we know if he’s a good guy or a bad guy? How do we know he’s not going to snap? How do we know he’s not just doing this to start shooting next week?

    That’s all the left can do, what ifs. Here’s a what if. What if he never does anything wrong. What if he never snaps. What if a mad man does show up and he stops that mad man?

  8. So the Libertarians Liberals and the Left have never really supported the First Amendment. Thanks for confirming that. I’ve known that for quite some time now. Going back to the days when Christians were arrested protesting, blocking abortion clinics back in the 1970s. But anti-war protesters were not arrested when they protested, blocking military recruiting centers.

    From Jan 2023

    “Open Carry of Firearms is Strong, Protected, Political, Symbolic Speech”


    You can have your pornography if you want it. You can burn an American flag if you want to. But if you burn a gay flag you’ll be arrested. And you can even burn a Cross if you want to. But all that has nothing to do with the first amendment.

    Just as you can hunt if you want. You can compete in shooting competitions if you want to. But hunting and three gun are not the reasons why you have the second amendment.

    • And the “gun community” is very weak on supporting the first amendment in general.

      • “And the “gun community” is very weak on supporting the first amendment in general.”

        How do you arrive at that conclusion?

        You are absolutely free to say whatever you want, so long as I agree with it.

        • I don’t know who came up with the idea? But the “empty holster” and the “banana in my holster” protests in Texas. That was one of the most outstanding displays of the First Amendment in the gun community.
          And it was extremely effective. The “banana in my holster” pictures were everywhere in the MSM back then.

      • Hmmmm… splain yo’sewf. If there is such a thing i’ve never encountered it. And I know plenty of folks who strongly support and defend both of those Articles of Ammendment. right along with the other eight on that list.
        Mayb youvebeenreading too much liberlwhackjob press.

        • Show me the articles supporting the rights of christians to block the entrances and protest at abortion clinics. The Left doesn’t support the 1st amendment.

          But I know you can show me hundreds of articles where it’s legal to block the entrances and protest at military recruiting centers.

        • Chris T in KY, For your edification that allegations that Christians are “blocking entrances…to abortion clinics” is Leftist pro-abortion propaganda. We have three such “clinics” in this upstate NY county and no such “blocking” has taken place, although the pro life folks do have pickets outside the so called “clinics”.

  9. He’s concerned with “implied” violence. Yet, when hundreds of protests by BLM/Antifa with ACTUAL violence occur, nothing to see there. When Antifa thugs stand in front of locations where drag shows for children are taking place, brandishing these same AR-15s, nothing to see there either.
    Think this guy could have a bias?

    • No, he’s saying it’s an explicit threat:

      “..as right-wingers show up heavily armed to statehouses in an explicit communication of the threat of deadly force if they do not get their way on matters of public policy. ”

      He even uses the word “explicit.”
      Note, no threat is actually made, explicit or implicit; but Holmes is, we are to assume, able to somehow read minds, and see the threat that isn’t made.

      • I carry my Personal Protective Device everywhere I go. WHY would I take the pains and risk of leaving it at home when I heppen to duck over toward the Capitol building when they are trying to force a nasty anti-gun bill upon we whom they purportedly serve?

  10. So it is the gun this idiot can see that frightens him. I guess he is fine with concealed carry? Or is he just okay with the thugs that are going to carry a gun to enable their criminal activity? This guy simply fails to understand that he is surrounded by people with guns yet only the criminals harm others.

    • Holmes has the same mindset that many on the left have – guns are, by themselves, a threat to everyone. That somehow have the ability to cause people to commit acts of violence that, if the gun were not present, that person would never commit. Therefore, the gun, by itself, is evil, and any time a gun is present, an explicit threat is made, that, of course, they can see, even if others can’t.
      This is why, for example, an AR is to be banned, while a Mini-14 is OK, because the very shape of the AR presents a threat. That this is irrational isn’t even to be considered, because they “know” what’s really going on (this fits nicely with the idea that most on the left have that says they know what’s better for us than all the rest of us do).
      Facts don’t matter. That’s why Biden says he cares about truth, not facts. And those on the left know the truth, facts be damned.

    • Like most idiots it’s either out of sight out of mind or he honestly believes in the power of royal decree and signage.

      Because every school kid knows there are no drugs in school and every prisoner knows there are no weapons in prison.

      Just like parents who wave their kids off on the morning bus believing a solid, classical education awaits them upon arrival.

      Out of sight, out of mind.

  11. I always giggle when people try to say the founding fathers would never have wanted this, because it lets me know how ignorant they are. And I laugh out loud when they name drop Jefferson, who wrote “Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. Never think of taking a book with you.”
    Yes, people carrying rifles into chipotle is EXACTLY what Jefferson wanted, for children and adults alike. We know this, because it is well documented that that particular phrase was written by Jefferson to a FIFTEEN YEAR OLD BOY.
    Kids weren’t babied back then. John Adams sent John Quincy to Russia at the age of 14. He was considered old enough to travel, work, and begin building his own life. Kids were raised with the expectation to behave well.

  12. I don’t recall too many people complaining on the Left when members of the New black Panther Party with police batons in hand. Not strapped to their sides, but holding in their hand a police baton. While they were standing, outside of the voting polls. A police baton is an Arm just like an AR-15 is an Arm.

    “implied violence”

    I guess it all depends on Whose Ox is gored????

    • see, resolved without banning anything and no such thing as a threat presented here. I guess law abiding gun owners are ‘common sense’ ‘reasonable after all. its too bad the left wing isn’t ‘common sense’ ‘reasonable’

      • Except he shouldn’t have agreed to that. There’s nothing more valuable to protect in that neighborhood than the kids waiting for the school bus. He shouldn’t compromise on his right to watch over them.

        It’s tiny retreats like that which inevitably lead to your state turning into New Jersey or New York City.

        • I don’t believe that his primary purpose was protecting kids (it’s just a side benefit that the Karens oppose) — I think that this angle (that he only comes out to the bus stop when kids are there) was ginned up by the TV station or the parents that oppose him.

          He says that he’s protesting twice a week walking the sidewalks of his neighborhood and was seen by children at a bus stop across the street. He only approached the kids once by walking over to them and talking with them about how he’s not a threat.

          So he’s agreed not to protest during bus pick-up and drop-off times; I’m curious if he still protests during other times of the day.

  13. @Chris T in KY
    “The “banana in my holster” pictures were everywhere in the MSM back then.”

    That’s something to bring back, and proliferate across the nation.

    • The “banana in my holster” should be used in slave and free states. These are just my suggestions for a peaceful protest. Anyone can use them. And you don’t have to even give me credit if you don’t want to.

      1. You can carry signs saying, “I don’t want to be a victim.”
      2. You can list how long it takes, for the police to respond when you call them???
      3. You can list all the crimes that the police themselves have said, “they will not respond to”. 4. You can list some of the prominent crimes that have happened either currently or in the past.

      Post a banner listing all the crimes that the police will no longer respond to, that will get the media’s attention. They will go ask the cops. “Is this true???”

      From 2018

      This was an extremely effective protest. And it was also illegal. Because gluing the posters to the sides of the buildings is considered vandalism. This type of activism requires the activist to wear gloves and to hide their face. So security cameras don’t photograph them.

      Liberals of the 1960s would have called this “direct action”

      “VIDEO: ‘Broward Coward – Stood Down’ Posters Plastered on Broward County Sheriff’s Offices” video 7 min long


    • Fine.Bananas are OK. ven OK to carry.

      Just nake sure the thing you removed from that holster to make room for the banana is shifted to somewhere else upon your person. The less visible the better.

      • “Just nake sure the thing you removed from that holster to make room for the banana is shifted to somewhere else upon your person.”

        Thinking no one ever asked, “Is that a banana in your holster, or are you glad to see me?”

  14. “What’s so unsettling about this Maryland incident, though, is that the adoption of a neutral stance [by reporters] legitimizes antisocial behavior and presents it as a fair form of “protest.””

    And, here’s the ‘Crux of the Biscuit’, as the late Frank Zappa once noted :

    He’s *Outraged* that someone can have a different opinion than him, and that justifies silencing free speech.

    This where this is leading. Anything we say is ‘dangerous’, and that gives them the right to suppress it, by any means necessary… 🙁

    • “He’s *Outraged* that someone can have a different opinion than him, and that justifies silencing free speech.”

      “Free speech” (1st Amendment) applies only to “legitimate speech”. “Illegitimate” is anything that offends anyone, thus not “free speech”. Speech that offends is violence.

  15. There is no reason to be holding a firearm in hand. No threat exists that justifies that.

    If you want to protect children (even at bus stops), THIS is not the way to do it. This does nothing but poke the bear. It makes a bad situation worse and that assuming this guy has good intentions. I would be very concerned too. This is a stupid move by a gun owner and is akin to ‘testing’ cops for 2A compliance. I am completely against doing things like this.

    Be one of the parents carrying concealed. If you want to use an AR then have it across the back. But everyone is better off WITH armed people that care. The point is NOT to be threatening. If when something is legal, that does not translate to being exceptable.

    • “Be one of the parents carrying concealed.”

      Concealed carry is not a deterrent; no better at preventing armed attack than GFZ designation and signs. Open carry makes an unmistakable statement: A perp intending to shoot up a school is forced to confront the likelihood of failing, before the shooting starts.

      • I wont argue any of that. But none of this is actually about deterrents. Anyone attempting such an act would not be deterred by someone doing this. What would happen is that this guy would be the first target.

        • “Anyone attempting such an act would not be deterred by someone doing this. What would happen is that this guy would be the first target.”

          Seems to be speculation built on top of speculation.

          While concealed carry might soothe the bear, open carry carries at least the threat of armed resistance to someone intending to raid a school.

        • Of course it’s speculation. Being prepared is really nothing more than an effort at best guess.

        • “Anyone attempting such an act would not be deterred by someone doing this. What would happen is that this guy would be the first target.”

          You’ve got lots of examples of that, right? I’ll wait.

    • I agree, if this person had a pistol in hand would that be different? A hand on a pistol grip seems to be brandishing. Unless I personally knew this guy I wouldn’t want him near my kids.

      • Moderated, eh? Now THAT is funny. Methinks your All Gore Rhythms need some adjusting

    • there was a season in my area not that long back where parents would accompany their children to the bus stop and wait there until they were safely aboard the bus. Then in the afternoon they’d return to meet the bus to safely escort their children back home. And those parents WERE ARMED the whole time, large bore handguns and rifles. And NO ONE was afraid… because the parents were armed in case the cougar that had been stalking the children decided that bite sized kid was too delectable to resist.
      A Grandpa of one of the students was out for a post-dawn stroll in his apple orchard out back (he was also armed, same reason) and noticed the kitty cat lounging in the early morning sun spread out on a branch of one of the trees. Raised the muzzle, covered the cat’s head, and drilled him. Fell to the ground like a dropped wet dishrag.

      The disgusting thing about this whole kerfiuffle is that state fish and wildlife had been asked to take care of the cougar, but denied it existed. There have been NO cougars hereabouts for decades. But when Gramps shot the cougar tat did ot exist, per gummit ex-spurts, they came and arrested him for taking the cougar out of season and with no tag.

      Gramps showed up for court, accomanied by a large company of parents of those kids, the judge never even heard those folks, after he heard the prosecution tell about the cougar that did not exist that was reportedly stalking kids, the judge banged his wooden hammer and said CASE DISMISSED. Then he chewed hard on the State dweebs for first refusing to do their job and deal with the cougar, then for bei=ing stupid enough to bust Gramps who took his time and trouble to d THEIR job. A rather vigourous cheer erupted in that courtroom. State dweebs managed to slink off into the distance.

      Guns are useful to protect a number of different kinds f people from a number of different kinds if danger. Something the whingers can’t or won’t seem to comprehend.

    • a firearm being visible, regardless of how/where carried, is ot a threat in and of itself.

      If it were, the solider recently sentenced in Austim for shooting at the very threatenig creepwaving his AR aboutcertainly had justification for shooting.

      • Difference in Austin is that the gun was actually pointed at the man who shot him. Big difference. One is a threat and the other is not.

    • I’ve seen a lot of cops carrying ARs. None of them keep them slung on their backs when patrolling. You don’t want to be struggling to swing your gun around when an active shooting starts. Citizens have the same right of readiness.

    • Sam,

      so why do leos go plain clothes? You’d think their uniform and vehicles would be enough to stop crime in the areas they patrol…

      This dude is making himself a target. Nothing more, nothing less. You would have never heard about this idiot if he’d been concealing and watching from a safe vantage point. He wants a confrontation, he thinks he’s an “auditor”, and it’s not working the way he thinks it should.

      Only rookies and wanna bes open carry, especially like this. You might as well paint it neon green and wear high vis tactical gear.
      “Look at me, I’m safety!”.

      you all want examples? Rittenhouse. A lot of us know that trial was fucked up and wrong, but what did he expect? What does anyone who shows up like that expect? Your presence doesn’t deter shit, it attracts confrontation like flies to shit. He was the opposing side of the spectrum and now his life is ruined because of it. We all wish it was different, but it isnt. We all wish that kind of deterrent was justifiable, but in our society, it’s the same kind of idiots that show up on the left – people who are seeking confrontation. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything beyond that is pure luck of the draw whichever way the wind blows. It’s a miracle he was let off. Win for us, right? Yea… right.

      • IAW the logic that open carry is useless to prevent attacks, concealed carry is even more useless.


        The Second Amendment is a warning to government; open carry reinforces the warning.

        To consult a worn trope, if you have to hide your exercise of a constitutionally protected natural, human and civil right, in order to be permitted to exercise that right, does that not place us in the position of encouraging/endorsement infringement?

        • As usual Sam, you are spot on.

          And the whole “it makes people uncomfortable” trope is . . . basically surrender. We shouldn’t be able to vote in public? Carry signs in public? Churches should be hidden in basements in the warehouse district? That’s some galaxy-brain thinking. A right is a RIGHT, and I get to exercise my right, no matter HOW it makes you “feel”. Now, I don’t “open carry”, but not because I’m afraid of how it will make somebody “feel”, but because I’m just naturally a sneaky sumbitch – I don’t want you to know I’m going to shoot your ass until the bullet hits. But that’s just me; YMMV.

        • Dude… it’s not doing what you think it’s doing and this is from someone that used to open carry daily.

          You are not “hiding” it from government – it’s out of sight out of mind for your own safety. Concealing is 100% smarter in every way.

          A right is a made up privilege btw. It’s nice they let us have a few, but don’t kid yourself. An open carry march to protest infringements does what? lol… We saw it in VA – they put gates all around and herded the flock like sheep.

          Yea! wInNinG!

          There is a reason they are associated with LARPing.

  16. Holmes, Johnny Holmes?
    Two gunms Johnny, not that he carried two gunms it’s just that he had a pecker as long as that barrel on his Walker Colt.

    • ehhh,, I dont know if grandpa should have done that.
      Theres only so much stick stirring before the bumble bee’s come out and start stinging you.
      Best to keep silent until you throw a bucket of water on the nest and grab a 1×4

  17. The national socialists are always upset that laws have to be written down, they just want to say they don’t like someone, or something, and have their goons take action. You can’t arrest people for things that are not crimes, even in a national socialist state. Besides the Attorney General of Maryland once told an appellate federal court that Marylanders do not need pistol permits as open long arm carry is legal everywhere in public except for at political protests.

  18. yall missed it
    see what he did there:
    “…if they do not get their way on matters of public policy”
    he just equated the 2nd amendment right
    with red light cameras
    and tampon machines in boys bathrooms

    • Tampon machines in boys bathrooms?
      In high school we had a guy nicknamed Kotex Rex, he’d steal his moms kotex soak them down with ketchup from the lunch room them sling them against the hall walls.
      He got drafted, didnt make it back. 🙏❤

  19. This guy defines “that guy”.

    Never go full retard. If someone wanted to do something, guess who their first target would be. How hard would it be to walk up to this guy acting like a friendly and slit his throat? Just saying… or pop a shot from a distance then pick the rest off.

    All you are doing is scaring people and giving them an argument to hate guns. You can do your little parade patrol concealed (both in arms and out of plain view). This dude just want to operate operationally and he’s looking for a confrontation. That’s all these “auditors” do. Real life trolls. There used to be an argument for “let them see it” but not any more. Its just a dumb move. Out of sight out of mind. Learn how to operate from a concealed position and stop being confrontational. At a school bus stop is not the time or the place.

      • No shit. Stupid is stupid, no matter how many times you repeat it.

        Oh, they get their panties in a wad if they see my gun? Yeah, and they get their panties in a wad if I voice my opinion on economics, abortion, or Senile Joe being a doddering idiot (who was an idiot before he was senile). So the f*** what??? I don’t care if they get their panties in a wad, those are my RIGHTS.

        I’m still trying to parse out why people who ostensibly support civil liberties feel the need to have the caveat “as long as you don’t upset the Karens”. Why?

        • It’s got nothing to do with that.

          Put your opinion on a bumper sticker. (even though I’m sure you already do)

          You want change and real freedom? I’m ready to boog whenever you are. Yea… I thought so.

        • Montana,

          No, no I don’t. I have not a single bumper sticker on my car, and never have. As a sage once said, “my worldview won’t fit on a bumper sticker”.

          As for the last half of your post – you’re “ready to boog”, but not carry a gun openly??? Hey, keyboard warrior, research “intellectual consistency” and get back to me.

    • CJ,

      Yeah, but they’re too stupid to even get the point, so . . .

      Does beating their stupid arguments, when they’re objectively too stupid to even know it, count? Tree falling, forest, does it actually make a sound?

      Our repeated attempts to reason with MajorLiar and dacian the demented haven’t seemed to educate either of those morons As Ron White says, “You can’t fix stupid.”

  20. @Montana Actual
    “We saw it in VA – they put gates all around and herded the flock like sheep.”

    What you saw was the government demonstrating fear of “We, the People”, as was/is the intent of the Second Amendment. The protesters were herded like sheep because the purpose of their demonstration was warning, not insurrection.

    • lmfao ok. Keep telling yourself that.

      “We are tired of you controlling us!”
      “Sir, stay in the gated area”
      “Sorry, we support you and thank you”

      When will the right learn? Maybe it’s time to take a page out of the lefts playbook and stop crying in the corner then crying even louder when the teacher tells you to stay in the corner longer.

      So, again, what did the protest in VA achieve? Everyone there cried about “throwing the bums out” and being tired of the infringements, yet they literally passed everything they said they were going to after the peaceful protest was over. They shook hands with officers and nothing was accomplished.

    • So just to keep this simple:

      VA: Still not constitutional carry, and passed “red flag laws”.

      Win? or LARP?

      • “When will the right learn?”

        Thanx for the opening….

        The political alignments are appropriately labeled: “right” = correct; the latin word for “left” is “sinister.

      • “VA: Still not constitutional carry, and passed “red flag laws”. ”

        Virginia remains a “blue” state, like so many where the majority vote is in the cities. Northern Virginia is occupied territory, and unlikely to be liberated in the foreseeable future. It is folly to look to Virginia as a bellwether for the conservative movement.

      • Montana,

        Who are your Senators?? What parties are the from??

        You’re making yourself sound more stupid with each post. Work on it.

Comments are closed.