Previous Post
Next Post

M2 flamethrower (courtesy 

Check this from The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence’s blog [bolded text de-bolded]: “Robert Farago, a pro-gun blogger at ‘The Truth About Guns,’ has also been on a crusade against MDA because of their focus on domestic violence, writing a series of angry posts on October 7October 9, and October 20. “There’s no level of emotional manipulation to which they won’t sink to achieve [their] goal,” Farago wrote in his October 7th post, to which commenter “niceguns” responded, “Moms demand action. we reserve the right to be bitches without any repercutions. How would you like to be married to one of those bitches.” You see what they did there? Well for one thing they linked to TTAG. Yay us! But they also used a comment to undermine any constructive criticism. And they did it again . . .

On October 9th, Farago decried an editorial (“Time to Block Gun Violence Against Women”) that MDA founder Shannon Watts wrote for Reuters along with Chelsea Parsons of the Center for American Progress.A commenter calling himself “Dirk Diggler” then posted Shannon’s home address and suggested gun owners go there. Farago let that comment stand, along with others that were sexually aggressive in nature.

Screen Shot 2013-10-22 at 2.20.37 PM

Farago got down and dirty with his audience in his October 20th post, which dealt with his participation in the “Line in the Sand” rally organized by Open Carry Texas and other insurrectionist pro-gun groups at the Alamo on October 19, 2013. At that event, Farago encountered a Moms Demand Action activist who stopped by (MDA was holding its own rally that day in San Antonio)  “At first I thought the Mom from Moms Demand Action was just being a bitch,” Farago recalled, referencing the fact that the MDA activist refused to consent to an interview with him for his blog. Farago then mocked her for confessing that she was frightened by the sight of hundreds of heavily armed Americans preaching armed revolution at the famed battle site. Referring to her as a “hoplohphobe”—a term made up by misogynist/ultra-racist NRA board member Jeff Cooper to describe an individual with an “irrational” fear of guns—Farago explained that she sought him out that day because she “want[ed] an alpha to take control.”

Perhaps Farago is unaware that violence—like his pointed accusations—is used as a way of demeaning and controlling women, to keep them in a subordinate position to men. Or maybe he simply fails to appreciate irony.

Oh please. I did not mock the Mom in any way, shape or form. In fact, I humanized her for a normally antagonistic audience. And, of course, I know that violence is a way of demeaning and controlling women. As it is for men and children. A method used by criminals, governments and (especially) criminal governments. Which is why I’m for arming all free people.

Anyway, the antis’ post raises an important question: should we delete comments that flame people who advocate for civilian disarmament?

TTAG’s current flaming policy is clear: no flaming the site, its authors or fellow commentators. On occasion, I extend that to remove comment about non-community members: those who would curtail or eliminate Americans natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. I usually save the delete key for those times when the comment is sexist, racist or just plain nasty. But most of the time I let it slide. I figure The People of the Gun need a safe place to vent.

The CSGV post highlights the danger of this editorial freedom: gun control advocates can use anti-gun control flames to accuse gun rights supporters of being Neanderthals whose arguments are not worthy of consideration. On one hand, who cares? The CSVG is an echo chamber. Anyone reading their site already holds that opinion. On the other hand, shouldn’t we seek the moral high ground?

Truth be told, TTAG’s a bit of an echo chamber too. Although we never censor comments for editorial slant and protect pro-gun control commentators from flames, there aren’t a whole lot of MikeB302000’s around (if you know what I mean). By elevating the tone of our comments—by removing ones that play in the gutter—we might attract more fence-straddlers.

I dunno. I like you guys. I appreciate the anger and vitriol against gun control advocates. They are, after all, putting our lives and the lives of our loved ones in peril. Their agenda threatens the liberty for which our ancestors fought and died. For which many members of our curent military fight. But maybe we need to police ourselves a little better to show that we won’t sink to their level. [Note: I know exactly how nasty the grabbers can be.] What’s your take on this?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. They loathe and try to remove our 2nd ammendment protections, why the hell should we limit our first ammendment protects for their feelings? They should move to North Korea if they truly love gun control and hate criticism.

    • They declared war on us and then can’t handle it when we call them out for their behavior. How very Liberal of them. Then they blame you, Robert for what we post in the comments section. How very LIberal of them again. They delete everything our side has to say on their websites… Once again, typical Liberalism.

      Unless comments are downright vile and pointless, don’t moderate. Don’t stoop to thier level…

        • Besides, these Democrat extremist shrills like to get down and dirty on a personal level whenever they can’t otherwise present a logical cogent argument for their positions; if they can’t stand the heat, they should stay out of the kitchen is I believe a relevant response to their specious outrage.

          They like to distract us with outrageous claims, insinuations and outright lies. If what we say distracts them, I’m all for it as long as it is done in good, not too obscene, jest.

          The site Gods and commentators have been very reasonable policing comments to date; I’m good with that!

      • “Unless comments are downright vile and pointless, don’t moderate. Don’t stoop to their level…”

        The comments on THEIR websites OFTEN are vile, pointless, and some even could be called criminal threatening. Then they complain about comments on this website that are mildly sexist. That takes a lot of nerve! Is there any tactic, any argument, that is so low the gun grabbers will not use it? I don’t think there is.

        When they start policing their websites, then maybe you should start policing this website a little more strictly. Until then, when you hear comments like that, consider the source…

  2. Screw em.

    If they don’t like the First Amendment ,they can fly a kite.I will say what is on my mind regarding the topic at hand, and so should we. These hoplophobes don’t deserve further consideration.

    • Why do you think they want to revoke the Second Amendment?

      Because without the protection it affords us from tyranny, then only they and their “progressive” allies in the armed government will decided who enjoys the First.

      • Gentlemen please!

        It’s comments like these that give them ammo. Calling them ‘MILFy’ and saying that if they demand action that much you’d be happy to oblige. Next thing you know…

        This just in, readers from The Truth About Guns have organised a GANG RAPE!!! of Shannon Watts. They have even procured her home address through unknown channels!

        You just know that’s next.

        Also, video or it didn’t happen. If you’re wife has a Shannon wig, pics just aren’t enough. We know you have Photoshop.

        • has a rule that if you mention a wife or a girlfriend, you have to provide a photo. It doesn’t even have to be racy (actually, that’s to be avoided except in specific threads), but a photo nonetheless.

        • dude – relax. Shannon was the moron who registered her group using her home address. Just google it . . . . .

        • Dude, I know. I was trying to point out the fact that if someone actually DID take a dump on her lawn they would ‘find’ evidence that you found her address through clandestine and otherwise illegal means. Like following her home from birthing class.

          We aren’t smart enough to use google, remember?

      • Other people have said it better than I can, so I’ll let them say it again:

        “I believe that being despised by the despicable is as good as being admired by the admirable.”

        “Freedom of speech isn’t working out so well for liberals now that they aren’t the only ones with a microphone. It’s not so much fun when the rabbit’s got the gun.” — Ann Coulter

        “Name calling, slander, and hyperbole is a sure sign that the other person has lost the argument and has nothing else to say. We see this all of the time.”

    • Congratulations Dirk you made the antis radar. I am quite jealous you made it before me, and all for “pokin” fun at the yeast infected cvm bubble on the ass of humanity that is Shannon Watts.

      • and for the record, I never told gun owners to go to her house – I said “anyone” and Project Veritas video project. . . . if anyone watched the link, they went to Eric Holder’s house and the house of everyone on the Ed Board of that silly suburban NY newspaper who published gun owners’ addresses. No one suggested violence, hence, it is proven that besides being Milf-y in a creepy way, Shannon is a liar.

        Here is the Oct 9, 2013 post that got their panties in a bunch (or was it Mr. Watts’ panties in a bunch?):

        Has anyone given thought to going to Shannon Watt’s home ADDRESS DELETED (don’t worry – it is public info and the address she also uses as the registered address for MDA). . . . and pulling a Project Veritas by asking her or her wimpy former health care industry executive turned art gallery owner (sorry – but he is not old enough to be retired unless we was “retired”) if they would like to place a “there are no guns in this home” sign on their lawn? The video would be priceless!

        • Let’s face it, they would get upset at any comments in our comments section. If they were upset by the comments here, they might have a heart attack if they checked out’s comment section. Might be time to send them a link.

        • She’s only a couple of hours from me. Maybe I should get some friends and go try to have one of those “rational discussions” she’s always claiming she wants. I’m sure the video of her foaming at the mouth any time facts are mentioned would be comedy gold.

        • Take a camera crew and a reporter with you for “film at eleven” or you might end up in jail for stalking or harassment/disorderly conduct.

          I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some hugely rich benefactor wasn’t paying for security for her and her primary cohorts.

        • “I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some hugely rich benefactor wasn’t paying for security for her and her primary cohorts.”

          This isn’t Beetlejuice, you can say “Bloomberg”. =)

      • people have been popping into my office wondering why I am laughing so loudly. . . . . .:-)

        maybe I should go home and have my wife put on the Shannon Watts wig I bought her and open some champagne, dim the lights and really celebrate?

    • Well done sir! We’re all going to have to up our antagonism if we’re going to call ourselves worthy of frequenting the same blog.

  3. “Should We Delete Comments that Flame Gun Control Advocates?” No. Delete the gun control activists, keep the flames.

    This is a culture war, and all culture wars are to the death. One culture lives, the other dies. That’s the way it’s always been.

    We don’t have to play nice with fascists. We didn’t start this war. They did. Let them know that they’re in for a hell of a fight with no holds barred.

    • I approve of this comment.

      And to the TTAG Staff, why don’t we have a comment voting feature? Like a like or dislike button for comments? And even after asking that question I find myself pondering whether a feature like that actually provides any real value…

      • The only value in a comment voting feature is that it (in theory) floats the good comments to the top. I just don’t see that being of value for us, because all our comments are amazing.

    • Typical faux elite lefty outrage, even more despicable given she wasn’t even there, and is pretending to speak for the Mom you treated with compassion and rare insight, Robert.

      She knows MDA isn’t winning hearts and minds on the facts, country-wide, and she is pissed you and others here outed her as a sock puppet, which is actually a major rookie mistake on her part is she really is the professional PR person she makes herself out to be. So now she has to claim “victim” here to salvage any respect, when the simple truth is- her campaign is a fail, and this only highlights just how much that goes back on her, as the author of it.

      Having said that, my vote is to ignore her, and stick to the facts in the debate, and move on to more important issues.

      As to moderating comments- I don’t think you can do that with any degree of certitude that A: it will work, and B: wont impact someone’s 1A right, and
      C: people own their own words- if Dirk wants to go on and on about his sexual fantasy, that reflects on him, not you. I personally think its low class to post addresses on the internet, but I also note it was a community newspaper that claimed the same lofty ideals and Ms Watts and MDA, that did the same, in NY, to publish dozens of names and addresses of gun owners, including retired law enforcement, without their permission. So publicly available info is fair game in the internet age for anyone with a browser.

      • I just want to point out that it’s impossible for anyone here to “impact someone’s 1A right.” The First Amendment protects free speech from governmental interference. It doesn’t apply here.

  4. “I figure The People of the Gun need a safe place to vent.”

    I think your post here, RF, is proof that this isn’t really the case. This is a public site. If you had to be an approved member and comments were behind a login that would be a bit different.

    That said, I have no real answer to your larger question. My inclination is that if personal ‘flames’ are not allowed for one group of people they should not be allowed for any group of people. Disagreements on opinion or policy is one thing, getting totally personal and emotional is another. That said, it’s hard to stop and it isn’t a clear line… there’s plenty of stuff that would fall in a gray area and we’d constantly have people complaining that X got left in and should be deleted or Y got deleted but was okay. Everybody’s opinion of where that line is will be a bit different.

    On the other hand, this is a pro-2A, typically pro-freedom-in-general blog here and IMHO it should also be pro-1A. I’d rather not see much censorship of any sort except deleting spam and stopping threads if they get completely derailed by totally meaningless personal attacks that have nothing to do with the subject matter. I understand a profanity filter, however, to improve web search results (google, etc) for TTAG.

  5. or course, since MDA is registered with the State of Indiana at Shannon Watt’s HOME ADDRESS (nice work there), and they claim they have to right to protest at the NRA’s Headquarters, well. . . . . we have a right to show up and protest at MDA’s Headquarters . . . . Maybe Shannon will bake cookies?

      • Yes, their whole assertion against you is ridiculous. It’s COMPLETELY reasonable to protest at the HQ of a business or other enterprise. If she used her home address for that it’s entirely her dang fault. It’s only due to your diligence that you even realized it! Most people would have just assumed it was a commercial addy and never looked into it further. Showing up and voicing an opinion is not a threat and it’s a shame that your comments were apparently construed as such — not your fault MDA’s addy is Watts’ freakin’ house haha.

  6. Forget them. You will never be able to make them happy, and their cherry-picking a few comments that they find offensive does nothing to diminish the message, even if that is what they are trying so mightily to do in their blog.

  7. If we sound lowbrow, we will be considered lowbrow. If the best we can do to attack an opponent is to curse, perhaps it is time to reaquaint ourselves with a thesaurus. How much more impressive to demolish intellectually bankrupt arguments while maintaining the highest levels of civil discourse? It is too easy to dismiss a community by the behaviour of its basest members. Good manners and politeness does not mean that the gun community can’t still present the exact same arguements. It just means that we don’t get tuned out because we said “bitch”.

    • Agreed. We should always be the more reasonable, better-spoken, less able-to-be-flustered group of folks. Part of being an “intelligentsia” is being too smart to ‘work blue.’ We already understand that most of the folks on the other side of the 2A argument are working from emotion, not rational thought. Calling a woman a “bitch” is an immediate and HUGELY effective way to get them to completely and totally shut off and go 100% emotional, and I don’t blame any woman for that. It’s a loaded term and, to them, absolutely confirms any preconceived notion they have about guns being for men — and especially for misogynist, macho men who they *should* be wary of. It fits a stereotype and we should try NOT to do things that fit into their stereotypes.

        • Their reaction should be a pretty clear example that the use of the term in any context is a showstopper. There are myriad ways to express discontent with a person’s attitude that don’t involve what many would consider a sexist epithet.

          Wife example:

          Back in the day, I said things along the line of “you’re acting like a bitch” maybe two or three times when I felt the wife was completely and totally irrational and irate for no actual reason. Her reaction was to go thermo nuclear and I tried your route there, RF, saying something like “I did NOT call you a bitch, I said you were just acting like one, which implies you aren’t actually one.” That does not work. The conversation SHUTS DOWN. I learned that to get what I wanted or to actually continue a meaningful talk, the b-word is avoided at all costs. If you want to be effective, you can make small sacrifices. Again, just taking the high road and upping the maturity and upping the thought process and STRATEGERY to come across as the calmer, more rational party and help with a dialogue AND look much better in the eyes of a 3rd party if somebody is standing back and looking at both sides.

        • context for hoplophobes isn’t their forte. comment sections are free fire zones governed by a loose geneva convention ofn commentary – everyone can spot racist nerve gas or misogynistic napalm when they see it, but other than that, they can get fucked, because that’s what the first amendment says and a vox populi section demands.

          i do think that the contributors, while operating under a flame free aegis, should stand to a higher standard as their words are the ammunition used for or against our struggle.

          having said that, the coalition against gun violence authors should get some thicker skin and prepare for harsh language when their whole premise is to rape and purge the constitution of things that upset them.

      • Here’s where you go wrong. It is one thing to treat people who argue using logic and reasonable rationle and to take the high road with people of character and integrity.

        These folks do neither and have neither.

        The earn no respect and get no respect. The way to beat them is to change the game to the one we want to play and ignore their pitiful bleatings.

    • Hold on to your monocle and top hat for this, but we’re going to get tuned out by these bitches no matter what we say or do; we are their enemies and they hate us, make no mistake about that whatsoever.

      Robert, if you’re seriously thinking about playing nice with MDA and other disarmament groups just because we hurt their feelings after they persistently brand us all as cowardly, power-tripping, tiny-dicked child killers, you don’t deserve us as an audience and you most likely won’t have us for very long.

  8. It’s in the anti’s playbook to either heavily censor or outright deny comments. I would be very wary of heading down the path of censoring comments of any kind. If you censor certian comments but not others, you essentially allow the other side to say you and TTAG endorse all the comments you leave up on TAGG. A little disclaimer at the top of the comment section saying something along the lines of “We here at TAGG support the 1A as much as the 2A and are not responsible for, nor will we censor the content of the comment posters” would be a much better way to go.

  9. Shannon Watts is an outed Corporate Monsanto shill…she’s a complete activist whore who says what she’s paid to say.

    Her entire organization, MDA, is FAKE! Astro Turf!!!

  10. MDA is a professional victim society. They cry and point their fingers, “Look, look, they said mean things about us.” And then say nasty and demeaning things about their opposition. They’ll use anything they can to make pro-gunners into bullies and themselves into righteous victims. A little vitriol can be good for the soul but the high road hamstrings that tactic.

    • Bingo.

      This is what needs to be understood about modern groupthink politics in the US: they’re professional victim societies.

      Those of who who are mature, thinking, independent people are shouted down because we have no ‘feelings,’ we’re “heartless” and so on.

      I’d like to point out that there’s this concept in science called “evolution.” Those organisms that can adapt to change, survive, those that can’t, don’t, the strong survive, the weak perish.

      For some decades now, lefties in this country have been giving copious lip service to the concept of “evolution,” but they refuse to walk their talk. Now they want to take it a step further and stand the entire concept upside-down – the weak should get preferential treatment, and the strong have to comply with the wishes of the weak.

      Sorry, I’m siding with Charlie Darwin on this one.

  11. I’m kinda tired of everyone who wants things to be equal complaining when something happens that they don’t like. Tough it out, sister. I expect there are some less than perfect commenters on your blog too. Or do you censor them? Let everyone speak.

    • ” everyone who wants things to be equal complaining when something happens that they don’t like.”

      Notice any similarity to feminism?? You should. That is exactly what we are fighting.

      For the Right of Men to be Men and Act like Men.

      Signed, women who believe in you and the bigger cause 😉

  12. Matt Bors just insulted our penii. Did he get deleted? This is a fight for our future and the future of our spawn. Fvck shannon watts, mat bors, kapo bloomberg and the rest of them.

  13. I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand, this is our site and we should be as free to say what we want as they are on the theirs.

    On the other hand…the way we win the culture war is to convince more of the great undecided majority over to our way of thinking than the anti-s can to their way of thinking. If we come across as drunken, misogynist hillbillies, we play into their hands. Better to take the higher ground and counter their infantile comments with simple, well reasoned facts.

    We do after all have the forum if we really want to take someone out to the woodshed

    • No one reads this blog except us people of the gun, and professional anti-gunners (those without real jobs). And no one reads the professional anti-gunners blogs except their peers and Robert Farago. The undecided are not reading any of it. Represent us well in real life for sure, but here it does not matter.

  14. Robert don’t change a thing. The other side doesn’t like the heat turned up on them, so I say to hell with them.

    Mr Smitty

  15. Interesting to see their reactions when their tactics are turned back against them. Frankly, compared to the naked hatred and vitriol the anti’s spout not only in their website comments sections, but on those websites themselves, the comments here by frustrated readers are tame and boring.

    After all, nobody’s going on Twitter and suggesting that MDA members’ children should be murdered. Can’t say the same about antis and the children of gun owners and NRA members. If they want the “flames” to cool, then they need to refrain from fanning them.

  16. I don’t think you should moderate the comments at all, except removing spam.

    But then again I’m from 4chan, and that is just not everyone’s cup of tea.

    But consider that our opponents will resort to childish insults, distortion, and outright lying before you consider bowdlerizing the site for their tastes. You can’t please them, and you can’t avoid giving them figurative ammunition because they will generate their own if they must. Just let people say what they want in the comments, and make it clear you don’t necessarily endorse what’s in here.

  17. “In fact, I humanized her for a normally antagonistic audience.”

    I find this statement to absolutely true.

    I have my own lines about “how far is too far.” There are some comments that I would delete simply because they’re “over the line” and offer nothing to further any conceivable conversation. Please understand I don’t think they’re over the line because they’re flaming a gun control person, I just find them unnecessarily and purposefully vulgar, with no other purpose but to be vulgar. As I said, “offer nothing to further the conversation.” Like a 12-year-old on cawadoody who’s just learned how to swear. I’d get rid of those.

    I also have an issue with doxxing, and will delete that when I see it.

    • By the way, please understand that I make a distinction between the “would delete” in the first paragraph and the “will delete” in the second. The first paragraph refers to things I would delete if it were up to me, but I don’t because (with some exceptions, there are always exceptions) that’s not how the rules are currently set up.

      The second part about doxxing, refers to things I will delete on sight. I realize a lot of it is publicly accessible information, such as the case of MDA being registered at Shannon Watts’ home address, but that doesn’t mean TTAG needs to disseminate (broadcast) it. You want it, go find it yourself. You want to prank call her or send her pizzas, then go to the effort of figuring it out yourself, but I don’t think we need to be enabling people.

      • I don’t think we need to be enabling people.

        Matt, that’s what TTAG is all about. It enables people to learn more about gun politics, to express themselves, to get real gun reviews instead of the pablum that some blogs and all magazines post. It enables pro-gun people to share information and sometimes to bust each other’s agates. TTAG is the great enabler, which is why it’s the top firearms blog in the world.

        When it stops being an enabler, the site will have outlived its usefulness. Fortunately, that day will never come.

        I don’t see the need for questioning Dirk’s motives or the potential result of him posting a valid piece of information. It’s the same kind of stuff that a Connecticut attorney used to shame a Westchester newspaper for exposing gun owners. It’s public information displayed in a public forum.

        None of us is going to leave p1ss stains on Shannon Watt’s lawn. Besides, I’m not going to order pizza for anyone but me. With ground beef, sausage, onions and mushrooms if you please. And a nice bottle of chianti.

  18. I don’t like the idea of curbing free speech on a site that emphasizes the importance of constitutionally protected rights.

    It would, however, lend more credence to our cause of people could agree to keep the comments less derogatory.

    • True, but I get tired of folks who think they have a right to not be offended. The 1st Amendment pretty much guarantees that you will, at some point, be offended by what someone else says.

  19. Here’s my take on it.

    The author of the article wasn’t specifically scanning the TTAG comments (as evidenced by their inclusion of Robert’s own words) for ammo against the site: they were looking for anything that could be used against the site period. I’d argue that if we try to cut off this avenue they’d just look to another source without any real loss of momentum on their end.

    My other concern is that of the slippery slope. I’d prefer not to tempt future events by limiting the freedom of the comments section, even against the people who make us look bad. This would be a very minor change, but as is constantly reported on this site, one limitation opens the door to a slew of small, incremental reductions.

    So even though some members of the community can hurt the cause in the comments, I’d say that’s a necessary price to pay if the alternative is a limitation of the rights we trumpet in this neck of the woods.

  20. I think it really depends on what you (Robert) want the blog to achieve. The flames are funny and entertaining, and I suspect they will draw in the pro 2A crowd. But I also suspect they’ll turn off a lot of the uncommitted. It is pretty easy to discount the arguments of the site if they are followed by characterizations of our opponents as b$$ches or personal attacks. Do you want to draw in the committed 2A audience or appeal to a more moderate crowd. That seems like the issue to me.

  21. This is all irrelevant anyway. If we/they talk nice, will that change anyone’s mind? NO.

    If we/they “flame” someone, will that change any minds? NO.

    No matter what you say, or do. People of all types will stick to their beliefs REGARDLESS of the facts, or what someone said.

    Are there truly any people, with half a brain, that are still sitting on the fence? If so, the nasty comments from both sides is not going to make a difference.

  22. Yeah, you’re gonna have rude comments. Its called the internet. Part of the consequences for the anonymity the internet brings is that people can say what they want with little or no real repercussions. Every comments board I’ve ever graced has had comments that go a little to far. Like the comments you’d probably find on anti-gun sites that hope that the next time someone shoots up a school, they hope pro-gun kids are in there.

    Honestly, unless a comment is obviously racist, I would leave it alone. But I want the antis to know that just as those people in their group that “hope” our kids get shot, some of the people who comment here don’t always represent the majority of us.

  23. They now go after the 1st. No surprises. Ignore them, I’d even say delete this post and act like you didn’t read that drivel of nonsense. They know they can’t win intellectual debate so now they target you for the actions of others. A typical tactic on theirs.

  24. NO do not censor, but frankly I’m worried that this is the first salvo in a potential lawsuit against you guys. There may be many attorneys here who would offer to help, but MDA has a direct link to endless Bloomberg money and attorneys on retainer.

    • From this lawyer’s perspective, not terribly likely. I’ll skip the technicalities, but anyone suing would have to show that a comment was a false statement of fact, not just a mere opinion, and that was made with malice–an intent to harm. All off these heated comments invariably fall within the scope of political speech–the most protected form of speech under the Constitution’s First Amendment.

  25. Sounds to me like they are loosing public interest & the argument as a whole, so they need to drum up drama.

    If you think the author of a blog, or any content online with a comments section, is responsible for what’s said by others, then let me be the first to welcome you to “the internet”… I will be your guide… sigh

    Censorship (no matter how careful) won’t lead to anything good imo.

  26. It would be nice if there was one site where vulgar comments were not posted to be used against us. Sometimes I laugh cause they are funny but it does not further our quest for increasing the size of potg.

  27. If they weren’t self-righteous, busy-bodied bitches they probably wouldn’t get called out for it. In turn they wouldn’t have to be upset about this… Just throwing it out there

  28. Well…Let’s see.

    They have posted the names and addresses of every gun owner in certain states.

    They openly wish violence on gun owners through twitter, facebook and the media in general.

    They seek to destroy our god given right to self defense along with our constitutional rights.

    They outright lie to suit their agenda.

    They shamelessly use the deaths of children and select minority cases to wave the bloody shirt.

    They decry our right to have weapons while their media mavens act like we can’t see they have body guards with guns and guns themselves.

    Stoop to their level? RF, we haven’t even glanced at their level.

  29. I do not agree with every comment made here but I agree every comment should be able to be made here. The more ridiculous ones are usually ignored or cause an argument. Those at the MDA office seem to be all for polarization, thinking everyone agrees with and thinks whatever is said by a single poster. I think that’s out of the playbook too.

    They want us to let our guard down and play nice so the next time they play dirty, which they usually do, they’ll have a larger advantage. They even played dirty by pulling out the sexism card in the first place, seems to be their go-to in an attempt to halt any “discussion” just like the race card (oh, they played that one too?). As if we’re so stupid to be manipulated that way. “Oh no, I hurt your feelings, I guess I should give in to your demands to make up for it”.

    Sorry there “moms”, but we’re fighting for everyone to be equal with equal rights, you’re fighting for everyone to be equal with no rights. If only you realized equality through a lack of rights only puts your demographic, the female population, at a great disadvantage. Never mind it opens the door to take away all rights in the future. By no means do I think everyone should or is able to carry a firearm, some people simply cannot handle the responsibility to do so safely or be level-headed enough to employ a firearm properly if needed, but I do think everyone should have the choice. You can tell me what firearm I can and cannot choose to purchase, carry, and own right after I can tell you what to feel, think, and express.

  30. Posting the home address of any gun control advocate is over the line.

    Tolerating threats of violence against any gun control advocate is over the line.

    Other than that, it’s all good!

  31. My take on it is for good manners.

    But really MDA is baiting here using a classic manipulation technique. They’ll quietly needle you over and over, endlessly, each little dig small enough to stay close to the noise floor, and then when (not if) you show any emotion proportional to their cumulative poking they’ll ring the bell and pretend to be victims.

    I don’t care how laid back you are, people calling you a hick, a nut, a fetishist, child killer, trying to throw blood on you, calling you unhinged, paranoid, associating you with every negative stereotype, putting you in the same category as organized crime and criminals and blaming you for other people murdering people, and doing this every day for decades with the national media on their side eventually makes you unhappy with them. You might just call them a mean name.

    The reason I think this is a baiting technique is because there’s really nothing else to be gained by making your national organization “take a bold stand on the commentors at some other guy’s blog”. MDA is squaring off at the level of their organization/blog with those random internet commentors. You’d think they’d way to be looked at as a group which squares off only with important players, not insignificant, dime a dozen ones. So I don’t understand why they’d even comment on it otherwise. There is no reason to expect that if you stand up in a public capacity details of your life won’t become public as well. There’s every reason to expect that if you are pushing a view which conflicts with someone else’s that you’ll make people mad, and when people are mad they say mean things.

    If part of their strategy to win is to make the argument “these people are mean, so agree with us” then they’re really in trouble, because that’s the kind of thing you do only if you’ve got nothing better, if you can’t argue for your ideas based on merit.

  32. Deleting comments because they may inflame anti-gun advocates, will just lead to them being inflamed by something else. They find firearms to be inflaming.

    While fence sitters might be more inclined to join in a conversation if toned down, most people understand that comments as a whole are pretty vicious.

    I’ve been on anti-gun leaning sites where the articles are calling for listing gun owners and terrorists, and the comments call for killing gun owners, so calling someone a name is tame by comparison.

  33. Fuck them. First they try and take our rights now they try to sensor us. On our (gun lovers) own site. If they have such an issue with people speaking against them then why are their arguments nothing but angry rants cussing and screaming at us? For that matter, why are they using the internet? Every anti-gun comment on Facebook is some form of “Eat shit assholes!” hell, I don’t even have a Facebook and the number of “I hope your kids die” comments I see from “the caring left” is insane. No problem then eh liberals? Hypocrisy at its finest. Pathetic.

  34. Pretty sure I’ve mentioned it before, you don’t win arguments by handing your opponent ammunition. You always want to be the one that comes across as the reasonable party. So if you’re looking to win, yes, out and out flaming of any kind should be removed.

    • Hold on your monocle, bub, because this might make it pop right off your face: they’re going to hate us no matter what we say or do. If you don’t give them ammunition, they’ll happily make some up, and their drones will happily consume, regurgitate, and consume it over and over again. According to them, we’re all a bunch of cowardly, power-tripping, tiny-dicked child murderers and they consider themselves to be at war with us. Yes, WAR, and if our side is honestly worried about hurting their feelings in this war, then we deserve to lose it.

      • Apparently I’m the Monopoly guy now?

        If you want to frame it as a war, then what are you fighting for? Certainly not members of MDA, they will never agree with you. You’re trying to convince the middle that you are correct. Just like elections where swing states are important, you want to make sure that moderates end up on your side. Offensive posts turn moderates off, so the only thing you end up accomplishing is damaging your own cause. If you want to go all Alex Jones, don’t be surprised when you can’t convince anyone that your ideas are valid.

  35. “Farago then mocked her for confessing that she was frightened by the sight of hundreds of heavily armed Americans preaching armed revolution at the famed battle site.”

    “Heavily Armed Americans?”

    “Preaching Armed Revolution?”

    And we’re worried that some of our commenters may offend?

    Fvck ’em if they can’t take a joke.

    Political Correctness and the Pussification of the American Male has gone way too far already, please don’t ruin TTAG as well.

  36. If you can’t make enemies, you aren’t making a difference.

    I didn’t know this was TTAG, refereed by MDA.

    If I wanted mom’s opinion, I would give her a ring. Otherwise, I am a big boy, wearing big boy pants and I find Moms Demanding Action demeaning to my claim to being a mature adult without the need for doting on.

    Another point… When did name calling a respected, passed away, war vet not a flame in to itself. Colonel Cooper did not need or deserve the labels the MDA placed on his person.

    • The Jeff Cooper thing is a good point. They whine about the way we talk, but then refer to a man that is 10x the man any of them ever will be as a “mysogynist” and “ultra-racist” tells where they’re really coming from.

      By the way, I’ve never heard either of those charges leveled against him. Is there any truth to them at all? I know he was a man from a different era, so are they simply looking at him through the light of today’s social window? (By social window, I’m referring both to the changes for good and the PC bullshit.)

      • He’s pro-gun. He worked for the NRA. He’s white. The anti’s have to add ultra-racist and mysogynist to complete their bigoted view of pro-gun OFWGs. It’s the only way their world makes sense to them.

        • This.

          That’s the point of my post above, they can say anything they want, making it all up as they go along, but we have to moderate?

          Ask Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin how polite the other side is.

        • For the record, the thought of Sarah Palin being one heartbeat away from the big chair scared the living shit out of me.

  37. Last I checked, every website that allowed comments had it’s share of vitriol and bile for something. I say let them stay, it’s no worse than what the fascists say about us.

  38. as long as they continue to lie and use propaganda tactics to rally their low intelligence constituents, I say screw’em… case in point:

    Robert Farago, a pro-gun blogger at ‘The Truth About Guns,’ has also been on a crusade against MDA because of their focus on domestic violence,

    confessing that she was frightened by the sight of hundreds of heavily armed Americans preaching armed revolution

    their mindless drones eat that stuff up….

  39. RF,

    To answer your question I don’t believe you should delete comments that “flame” the other side, I think the moment we start playing by their rules we open a door where there is no end to their demands, they after all hide behind the First Amendment while attempting to destroy the Second, so in my humble opinion they can all just go pound sand.

  40. Letting anti-gun mothers influence policy here at TTAG is a terrible idea. So what if some anti-gun harpy doesn’t like being called names? Tough shit.

    I thought women who went through childbirth were supposed to be badasses who can tolerate a lot of pain, so what’s with these assholes?

    Boohoo! An anonymous person on the internet made fun of me!

    Deal w/it, biiiiittttchhhheeeeeeeeessss.

    U mad?

  41. I think you guys have done a fine job of running this site. Don’t let the butt hurt “PC” crowd tell you what is right or wrong. All of our civil rights are to be cherished and it’s your right to decide what is posted to your site.

    I personally have never seen anything posted here that Bill Maher would not say in front of a audience full of women about Sarah Palin or her daughters. In short F**k em.

  42. I went to THIS PAGE:


    As few women are abused ballistically on a regular basis — a violent ex-partner without a gun is still a mortal threat.

    The Weapon/Method
    Firearm 1
    Axe 1
    Knife 2
    Medicine 1
    Personal Weapon 1
    Unknown 1
    Total 7

    While I could not find DGU (defensive gun use) data for VT in 2010 – there has been at least one event per year since, where a VT citizen saved their own life using a gun. Here is one of at least two such events in 2013:

    A violent person without a gun is still plenty dangerous!

    The police in my town have a program for women to learn gun safety and shooting. While it is not specifically stated as for “abused women” — many such persons have joined the program.

    How would any of you suggest a women defend herself from a big strong male threat with at least his fists and perhaps whatever he could pick up?

    Don’t say “call the police” this is rural state where police are FAR away.

    If one were intellectually honest — one would have to say that a gun would be the *ONLY* effective defense for a women living in a rural area — with a threat of violence from a person who could
    This was Samuel Colt’s whole idea.


    I have written to anti-gun groups — RESPECTFULLY asking a few questions on their policy statements — and have NEVER received a reply.

  43. HAHAHA!

    OK… so their feigned or real outrage is really outstanding given that they have this section on their blog:

    I guess hateful demeaning stereotyping as a method of social manipulation isn’t identifiable when it’s directed at a group you hate, wish to demean, stereotype, and manipulate socially.

    Seriously, look around. The whole topic of their blog is to demean and stereotype pro-2A people. Their comments invoke disgusting and toxic stereotypes all the same. They just believe they are true so they don’t notice.


    • I was going to reply to some of that, but since everything you submit gets disappeared until it’s approved by a moderator AND because I don’t see a single comment anywhere on their site that disagrees with them, no matter how politely, I don’t think my comments will ever end up seeing the light of day, so it’s a waste of time.

  44. The only thing the moral high ground is good for is siting your artillery. Because this fight is in the mud. It was fought in the mud of Fort Ticonderoga and Yorktown. In the mud of a burned out White House. In the mud of Fort Sumter, Gettysburg, Antietam, and Appomattox. In the mud of the Marne and Amiens. From the mud of Bastogne to that of Guadalcanal. And from Afghanistan to Iraq. So as long as our opponents want to fight and sling in the mud, I owe it to those who fought and died in the mud for this American Ideal to meet them anytime, anywhere, and defeat them any way I can. Without regret for tactics, for they know no shame in theirs.
    Michael Savela

    • I totally agree with the “use any and all tactics to win” when it comes to fighting for natural human rights. The question remains, though, is the tactic of calling people names and belittling them actually a useful tactic? It may feel good to do so, but does it help or hurt our cause in the long run? Because sometimes it’s not just about tactics, it’s also about strategy.

      We’re not here to convince the anti-gun folks that we’re right. They’re too far gone for that. There’s nothing you can say to turn their minds around, so it’s a waste of time to engage them at all. We should be concentrating on presenting a rational, reasoned, and calm argument to the fence-sitters. Name-calling and immature remarks aren’t going to help us in that regard.

  45. I was considering the possible validity of this comment until they called Jeff Cooper names.
    Dicks. Eat them. Lots.
    Next time one of your teams assholes calls for the death of every NRA member, I’m just going to ask where they want to start, and make suggestions. Since that clearly doesn’t both y’all.

  46. I’ve dealt with “bad editorial” when running community sites before. TTAG itself should maintain a high water mark itself… (I’m no fan of these “moms” but I did kinda go “eh” at the alpha male comment.)

    But as a site admin you can’t really “control the minds of the people on your lawn.” Anti sites will be looking for attack points. This is just one they found. Pointing to commenters is easy and cheap. Allowing comments at all on any site runs the risk of commenters not reflecting how the site would represent itself. But that’s the price of discourse. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

    I don’t agree with every comment here. Whether I engage or not depends on whether or not I want to deal with being my “former anti somewhat liberal” self — I get a bit of derision for that; apparently there’s even an archetype of the “liberal except for the 2a” types. (I wasn’t even aware. Oh well.) — (though I was corrected recently that I may actually lean more libertarian.)

    Anyhow — the point is , TTAG is actually less of an echo chamber than sites that are generally based on complete alignment. TTAG is about being pro gun rights. Cut and dry. Whereas a lot of “anti” sites actually have a broader set of what they’re really “against”. Look at the mentions: Guns, yes but – racism, misogyny … I don’t see TTAG writers talking about taxes, healthcare or gay marriage. So there’s one unifying factor here, but on the attacking sites, they’re cut more from the same mold between each other.

    So, TTAG is actually going to get more variety in commenters. Giving sites looking to do a “hit piece” (editing , paraphrasing and omission is so powerful …) on TTAG are going to have more variety to fish through.

    So no. TTAG itself should establish its standards . But let commenters say what they will, (unless it really is just an outright ugly troll or flame) And remind people that this isn’t groupthink here.

    Maybe some of these antis should just dive into the fray here, and see what some pro gun people are really about.

    Course, that may change their worldview. Gotta be careful there.

  47. I think there are some inappropriate comments; things that make us look bad and should not have been said. That aside, I don’t think it is the place of a moderator to do more than occasionally point that out to said posters. We should not be in the business of censoring, even if it is “for our own protection”. Is that not what we’re fighting against? People who think protecting us by limiting our rights?

    Besides, it does not matter if what we said came from the mouths of angels. If a sight is determined to bad mouth us, they will find something to take out of context and slam us with anyway.

  48. We should ask that all comments are polite.

    Beyond that — we should ENCOURAGE anti-gun types to comment.

    the more I hear “the other side” the more I know that the TTAG team is right AND more intellectually honest AND more knowledgeable.

  49. As far deleting comments, my opinion would be that it’s your site, your call. You pays da bills. If you decide to delete comments its well within your right. If you go that route and people don’t agree then they’re free to host their own site where they get to set the rules.

    From a personal standpoint I’d consider this article flattery. TTAG is on the radar which is a good thing. There is no such thing as bad publicity. And the fact that they had dig into comments to find a complaint means they couldn’t find fault with the reporting, a good thing.

    I enjoy the comments here. I also read Yahoo News daily (yeah, yeah, I know…) and anyone who thinks the TTAG comments are flames is truly unfamiliar with the interwebs.

    I saw your comment WAY up there ^ about context. There are generally three things every liberal I’ve ever known ignores: logic, context, and humor. Face it, if they understood context they’d also understand that most “gun violence” is also gang and/or drug related.

    Finally, on a personal note, these are also the people who share a mindset with the professor that tweeted that NRA members children should be victims of “gun violence.” When faced with people like that I’ll flame whoever I like….

  50. Over the post-“Sandy Hook” months, TTAG has been elevating the discussion with a plethora of facts on GCA and RKBA, great deconstructions of GCA arguments, useful strategies to engage others in RKBA discussions/acivities, etc., etc.,

    TTAG alerts us to critical RKBA issues, breaking news, and GCA strategies/tactics. Regardless of RF’s founding philosophy, it is clear that TTAG has become the central exchange for all gun information. This applies to both RKBA’ers and the opposing GCA’ers.

    Keeping the high ground is imperative in any battle. In this instance, the moral high ground can be held by restraining our frustration and not flaming/belittling GCA’ers. Rather, use the sagely advice posted on TTAG to deconstruct opposition and convert fence-straddlers. I believe TTAG has reached a sufficient mass to swing blows with great effectiveness simply by using truth, understanding, and tolerance. In particular, ethical discussions of how to treat your opponent and self-regulate your behavior as an RKBA’er (such as the current post) illustrate the

    I believe most of us will get plenty of time to GCA Bash while conversing with like-minded RKBA’ers.

    • I don’t think TTAG is really where an anti-gunner will be converted. Hell. I don’t think there IS any converting anti-gunners. Logic, reason, evidence, none of that matters, or ever will. All that matters is how they FEEL about it. America is a house divided engaged in a rapidly escalating culture war that can have only one victor. Mincing words and speaking politely while the opposition engages in outright smear tactics won’t save us from bad press. I value TTAG as a place to immerse myself in gun culture and keep up with current developments, as well as making sure I have good arguments in defense of my R2KBA. Don’t censor the comments. Huffington post certainly doesn’t, so why should we? I have to deal with enough double standards on a daily basis.

  51. RF? What was your opinion of what Starbucks did when pressured by MDA?

    Because you are currently in the same boat.

  52. I’m pretty sure they’re drawing attention to it because they would like to see it stop. Remember these people are obsessed with control. They are looking for ones they can use, obviously. I would say at most you should encourage users not to employ humor which could be interpreted as misogynistic. The comments are a huge part of this site.

  53. This will fall on deaf ears. But, I would like to see written, instead of bashing the opposition, would be to counter points to their argument in a well mannered way. Instead of just being dicks.

  54. RF,
    Keep running it they way you want to run it. The success of the site and generally good folks that post are proof of that. Whatever you’re doing, keep doing it!

  55. If you take the stance that encourages and supports the government taking away the rights of my parents, my children, my friends and family I get to call you an asshole for it.

    My basic human rights are non negotiable. And remember they are the ones suggesting we change, we give up our rights. They are the ones picking the fight and then crying about it when called on it. They have yet to show anywhere that gun control actually reduces violent crime. Anyone calling for gun control should have to prove that. PERIOD.

    If someone seriously suggested we need action to curtail the first amendment to protect our kids from bullying and hate speech. That the ACLU is part and parcel to kids getting bullied into killing themselves or hate crimes, people would laugh at them and rightfully ignore them as the nut jobs they are.

    Yet change it to the 2nd amendment and now they deserve attention? What? These people seriously blame the NRA for the actions of criminals and deranged murderers. They blame gun owners and gun rights supporters for Newtown. Let that sink in. They feel that if you don’t want to ban assault weapons you’re ethically responsible for the execution of elementary school kids. You cannot reason with that level of emotional irrationality.

    F**k them and their ilk. There is no common ground with these people.

  56. I’d tweak the flaming policy personally. No flames directed at individuals period. It doesn’t seem particularly consistent to only police flames against people who are here to defend themselves in the comments. Example: Mrs. Watts is flameable by current policy. If Mrs. Watts suddenly showed up and started commenting here flaming her would no longer be allowed. How do you verify the person commenting is/not the person being flamed?

    This is not, nor will it ever be a “safe” place to vent. The free fire zone/forum is a safeer place to vent, but even that is readable by anyone with internet (excepting the poor folks behind the Great Firewall of China and the like). As much as we may like to think the site is mostly unnoticed, this incident shows that at least some anti-gun advocates monitor this site (in addition to the Feds), so maybe we should be a bit more prudent about giving them ammunition.

  57. I don’t know the answer to be honest. What I do know is that controllers(of all kinds, not just guns) have no sense of humor. Yes we are laughing at them, but they do it to us all the time and we don’t wet ourselves crying over it.

  58. This is not a 1st amendment issue. It is an issue of vulgar, juvenile nimwits giving fodder to anti-gunners.

    Dropping the f-word, calling them the b-word, making no comment showing any thought, but just dropping vulgarities…and yet we claim to be the side of reason, not emotion.

    Look, it is up to TTAG what its policy is. They can delete any comment they choose, set up whatever policy they like. It is not a public forum. Just as I will kick out a person from my restaurant if they disturb others with their vulgarities, so could TTAG delete vulgar comments. But that is their choice.

    The beauty about the written word is you can censor yourself and not hit post when you have nothing intelligent to say. Those who cannot do this, are extremely immature. And those who refuse are even worse. Those comments are representative not of intelligence or reason, but at best raw emotion, and often indicate both being uneducated and generally self-absorbed. So no surprise when anti’s laugh off our assertions that we are the rational ones, that they are guilty of appealing to emotions.

    Many of the comments here do the same thing. Just because you are allowed to say anything you wish, does not mean it is not stupid and detrimental.

      • Feeling has nothing to do with it.

        Thought and feeling are not the same thing.

        And while I may not be personally superior, I can certainly say that it is superior not to talk as foul mouthed idiot. I don’t care if you were a vet, or if you are angry. You can self-censor. And if you refuse, whatever there is that might be intelligent in your thoughts, is covered up by the excrement that comes out. Those who cuss all the time, are judged to be less. Doesn’t matter if that is true itself in every case. What matters is that such judgments are made and poison the well.

  59. I carry a gun–everywhere–every day. Since I do, I’ve given up my privilege–not right–to get angry, insult people, etc., even in my own mind.

    The privilege to insult is given by the person being insulted–since they’re the ones who don’t have to take it. And, indeed, they may oppose it, even by force. When you carry a gun that can only end badly.

    An armed society is a polite society.

  60. So, here’s the deal… I enjoy an Internet pissing contest as much as the next guy, and most of the time, the result of that contest really doesn’t have much in the way of a lasting effect. However, the gun control debate is different; it DOES have real consequences, because those who take offense at some of the comments that are made on this and/or any other 2A website have demonstrated their willingness to form organizations intended to influence our politicians to essentially revoke 2A. As such, I suggest a different approach.

    If you’re going to engage an anti, engage them on their position (re: 2A). Point out the fallacies in their arguments, illustrate the shortcomings of their reasoning, debate the accuracy of their statistics; leave out the name calling, the I-wanna-hit-that comments (to quote the Mike Meyers character Goldmember, “That is an inside thought, not an outside thought”), the ridicule, etc…

    It’s difficult, I know. I myself have a (VERY) strong tendency to fall into sarcasm; that said, if someone was trying to convince me of something and called me names, made fun of me, insulted my intelligence, or (for some reason) made lewd comments about my appearance, I wouldn’t EVER see things their way. They could be telling me that the sky is blue, water is wet, and stewed okra tastes like snot, and I’d never agree with them.

    You probably wouldn’t, either.

  61. It’s your house so it’s your rules, however, since you asked… I’d recommend no censoring. When the liberals twist logic so badly as to be unrecognizable and when they invariably pop a blood vessel, the fence-straddlers that are worth having can see the looney left for what it is. Those fence-straddlers who are so easily swayed by a micromanaged comments section probably aren’t of strong enough will to keep as active rights defenders anyway. Their support would fold under less than ideal circumstances so it’s a waste of resources trying to sanitize comments for their potential benefit. It makes more sense to allow the liberals to tra-la-la off into crazyville in their comments so that those with at least half a brain and half a testicle see their POV for what it really is.

  62. It’s the Internet. Put on your big boy pants- or big girl pants. MDA: Toughen up, buttercup.

    It wouldn’t be so bad for them (MDA & others) if they actually tried to argue on facts, not fear, lies, and out of context quotes. I mean, if I made it a crusade to eliminate things I’ve been afraid of in my life, well, sheesh…

  63. I’m sick of being nice to these emotion baiting fucktard dimwits! Logic is of no use when engaging them in conversation. So at this point I only want to whip it out and tell the bitch to blow me! I’ll give the broad the action she demands!

    • I am a ranting, raving lunatic “scary” gun owner and definitely think Loub makes the BEST statement. I’ve had more than enough hoplophobe bullshit!

  64. They Are bunch of two faced liars anyway,how many examples would you like me to give?Bring it on anti’s !You are the ones BREAKING Federal Law not us. The Constituton is VERY CLEAR -THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR.that means own and carry.AND THOSE RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.What FN PART OF THAT IS NOT CLEAR TO YOU? So we don’t bow DOWN to you treasoner’s, you BY LAW, must RESPECT THESE Constitutional rights and it’s not a debatable’common sense’ issue now is it? I just got off the phone with a Federal Defender from California and we were talking about Federal Law vs StateLaw vs city ordinances,Sorry ANTI’S but Federal Law takes Precidence[HELLER VS WASH DC] so every law you anti,wantaby victims pass breaks Constitutionally protected Rights and because it is rarely challenged[because of expense], like in California ,they get away with breaking laws by passing UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS,Why do you think these idiots ‘want to have a conversation to enlighten the poor gun owner the error of their ways’ Well listen Knucklebrains ,get a clue ! You go unarmed that is Your Right,but don’t tell us our RIGHTS are Privies cause they are not.
    I know you liberals don’t like to be confronted directly and none that I HAVE MET KNOW A LICK ABOUT GUNS,so why do we bother trying to convince the unconvincable,just give them their,’I HATE GUNS ,signs to post in front of their personal residences.And leave it at that!

  65. Mumble, mumble, First Amendment, mumble… Besides, you just flamed them. With their own words. Who cares what they think?

  66. Most if not all of these anti-gun sites moderate comments and delete those contrary to the corporate view, irrespective of tone or intellectual merit. They brook no dissent, and they are afraid of what we have to say or its possible effects on their message and their members. This site welcomes all comers. Keep up the good work, guys. That is the way it should be. And if MDA doesn’t like what commentators here post, they are welcome to come and argue about it, if they can take the heat. The solution to “bad” speech is more speech, not censorship.

  67. No one calls out the fact that “Mina” is in fact a woman, thus incapable of spewing “rapist” type comments about women.

      • I’d post a photo of my boobs but then my husband would have to kill you.

        You know, honor and all that.

        Plus, he’d probably be pretty embarassed – they really aren’t worth photographing.

        • Come on! TTAG only has one girl. Kirsten Joy Weiss. And she can’t be married. The thought would just be too painful. );

        • Yes I am an actual woman and a regular reader/poster at TTAG.

          I mostly post on these types of “women against guns” articles and ones about pit bull type dogs … my two favorite topic (besides guns) are anti-Feminism and anti-Breed Specific Legislation (basically attempts to ban “assault dogs”)

          I like to think that I can bring a rare rational woman’s viewpoint to these discussions and maybe lend a bit of insight to the female mind.

          Ms. Weiss is a lovely lady and probably at least a generation younger than myself. Meaning: I could be her mother 🙂 (but I am not; I have 3 kids two in college and am very happily married to a gun-loving real man.)

        • Wait… They told us that all women, especially moms agreed with them and wished violence upon our children. Are you telling me they lied?! Will wonders never cease.

  68. Your house, your rules, Robert. But in my opinion, flaming makes us all look like raving lunatics. We can do much, much better.

  69. “Should We Delete Comments that Flame Gun Control Advocates?”

    Is that question even necessary? Not just no, but HELL NO!
    It’s bad enough they’re trying to go all 1984 on us with their uneducated gun-control lies & exagerations. Why give them yet another form of control over us?


    HELL NO.

  70. What’s my take on it?
    First off, I didn’t know Jeff Cooper was on the board of the NRA….

    I think Ralph said it about the best.
    To add to that, As I saw on a few posts in the past, I’ve seen the anti’s post here… Whats her name from that revolver/evolve site..

  71. RF as someone said upthread…you are now in Starbucks shoes. Its time to practice what is preached. Even the thought of censorship is outrageous….and embarassing for you. The faux outrage on the anti’s behalf is simply laughable when they get a taste of the same vitrol they so willingly spew. In the face of resistance you dont waffle…you fix fucking bayonettes!

    As they say there is no such thing as bad press…and considering this is a money making venture for you, the more traffic to the site the better. I say let all posts stand and let the comments reflect the real gun rights discussion…of the people by the people pro and anti. Let all post and we’ll hand out the beatdowns where appropriate. We’re all big boys and girls….well most of us.

  72. I hate to say it guys but I don’t think this site will ever be PC. Want proof? Figure how many of us here are military veterans then go hang around a group of joes having their lil bitch session or shootin the shit in the woodline. Some of us vets ain’t anywhere near PC. Myself included me and my friends from those days still call each other every filthy name under the sun and cuss like… well… sailors. Any other vets wanna back me up on this?

    • my mother was a nun for several years (before she quit and married my dad) and she taught me how to cuss better than sailors. BTW – thank you for your service to this grateful nation.

    • Ok I thought of this too late to edit the above so I’m puttin it here. Yall suggesting that we need to hold the MORAL high ground. Read the book the Green Berets by Robin Moore it will show what the moral high ground costs in a low intensity conflict, be it guerilla war orby acting morally in a culture war. This is not a war of morals and wills. This is a war of cultures and philosophies in which the other side will sink to any low to win. If they discover we (hypothetically) curtail our 1A rights on our own site what is going to stop them from using that against us?

  73. The antis badmouth us, call us violent overcompensating rednecks and worse, censor any criticism on their site(s), advocate abridging our Constitutional rights and then expect US to be “civil” and play by rules they clearly don’t observe?

    Pull the other one.

  74. You know why the civil rights movement was successful? Because they had the moral high ground. Their conduct was above reproach and so they won the fence straddlers.

    If we want to win the gun rights movement, then we need to be above reproach. We need to be respectful. That doesn’t mean we have to compromise or censor our ideas, it just means we need to be polite.

    I often see people on here complain about the other side resulting to insults and emotion instead of logic and reason. Yet, when they rightfully point out that we have some people who do the same the general consensus is “screw them, they aren’t worth us being polite”? That’s pretty hypocritical guys.

    We want to bring in the fence straddlers, best way to do that is to have the moral high ground by not giving into the other side’s tactics.

    • I do not agree. Additionally, we are not trying to change the status quo, but keep it.

      It should be THEY who are above reproach and they aren’t.

      Screw em.

  75. You know what Moms Demand Action? Fuck you. I hope you use my forum post as an example in the future.

    Using poster comments under a story or editorial is lazy, disingenuous, and just plain low.

    It’s the kind of writing that Yahoo does on their daily “something went viral!” articles.

    Look Moms, the reason why people call you bitches is because you’ve been trying to turn a national debate that resonates deeply with a great many people into a gender thing.

    No, a gender/procreating thing. The insinuation is moms somehow are smarter or care more FOR THE CHILDREN!

    Fuck. That.

    As evidenced by the pictures Mr. Farago thankfully provided of your lame “rally”, apparently everyone in the country who has a vagina and has gone through the experience of childbirth does not agree with you.

    You are a small, tiny minority of the population attempting to make yourselves look like the spokespeople of the majority… or at least the percentage that matters, right? /sarcasm

    How DARE you take the moral high road.

    How DARE you act/write so sanctimonious while smugly attempting to take away my gun rights and a great deal of why I am proud to be an American.

    I FOUGHT for those rights in the ass end of nowhere. I got the rare treat of getting to see my buddies die and having to burn bloody clothing that the media would otherwise use to sensationalize the injuries we sustained.

    If I /were/ to die in a mass shooting, I honestly hope someone would burn my clothes so you wouldn’t be able to use them as an emotionally charged plea to eliminate the weapons we use to effectively protect ourselves.

    Or am I too old now for you to be able to stand on my body, waving the “not another child!” banner.

    How DARE you preach “common sense”, both trivializing my sacrifices while giving your own organization a wink and a nudge.

    How DARE you pretend your campaign is about saving children and not simply removing gun rights. If you truly only cared about the children (said as shrilly and gratingly as possible), you’d be out to outlaw pools and trampolines.

    In short, your organization is not quite the sum of everything I despise, but close. You sneer at me, my life, my culture… and you expect me and those like me to suffer you gladly?

    Ladies, I say this politely as possible: Fuck off. Please go back to saving the whales or doing whatever it is people like you generally do.

  76. I posted this on her site:

    Yea, I’m a regular TTAG reader and post there often – i’ll just volunteer that right now.

    I read the 20 Oct post that day and I didn’t take take from it that Robert’s post was to “keep the sights of angry men focused on women who dare to disagree with them.” I’m sure he would have had a similar approach and thoughts towards a hoplohphobic guy that stated the same. I do find it funny that you took Robert’s complex post, discussing and speculating (that is all it really was) the mind of this hoplohphobic woman, and turned it into a domestic violence story on your site. That was quite a feat of Alchemy.

    I would like some examples of Jeff Cooper being a “misogynist/ultra-racist.” This to me seems like an unsubstantial assertion with no evidence. I do know that Jeff Cooper was against immigrants that came to the US with continued loyalty to their home country and home culture. Cooper firmly believed that if immigrants came to the US they should classify themselves as Americans… loyal to the US. I don’t know where “misogynist/ultra-racist” came from. Please provide an example as it appeared to just be another typical slanderous statement made only to link the NRA with the term “misogynist/ultra-racist.”

    Robert is about freedom from my experience. However, He does not tolerate personal attacks between posts on his site and those are subject to removal. He never removes posts that he disagrees with in my experience. Being about Freedom, he allows posts of all ideas within his comments – including jokes which you and I both know appear on both sides of the gun debate. Our culture is about freedom (more than just the 2nd amendment) and rights to voice those opinions – including yours.

    We are not pro-violence – we are pro-freedom (yours included). That said, as seen on both sides of this debate, insults and rude comments do occur. To make a claim that “OCTOBER IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ENCOURAGEMENT MONTH FOR PRO-GUN ACTIVISTS” is a bit silly and honestly is the same type of bias, rude, incorrect assertion made by some on our side as well as listed in this article itself.

    But it didn’t actually show up as a comment, probably because there are a lot of negative comments that disagree with her article so she disabled them… what a shame.

    • I hope you’re under no illusions that your (well-done) comment will ever see the light of day, or garner any attention beyond that which it takes to hit the “Delete” key.

        • They probably not only deleted your post, but banned you from commenting on their site altogether, maybe even from viewing it in the first place.

          That is what happens to literally every poster on their Facebook page anyway, who is even the slightest bit out-of-line with the ultra-left wing, fascistic, dogmatic delusions of the obstructionist gun control lobby — even a great number of their own.

          They are socially cannibalistic in that sense, too, it seems.

          You have to remember that these people are absolutely NOT in any appreciable way interested in a conversation. All they want, and all they will ever accept as long as they draw breath, is their long-fantasized one-way, complete capitulation of their named adversaries (q.e.d. anyone and everyone who isn’t already “one of them” or “on their team”). Don’t forget the implicit acceptance of purposefully misplaced guilt onto the same for crimes that they did not commit nor had any hand in facilitating in any way, shape, or form whatsoever.

          They know that, overall, they are in fact LOSING the ground game. But, don’t tell them that. They’ll scream, and holler, and curse into their ever-shrinking political echo chambers and blame their ultra-regressive base for not being Statist enough. They see that their audience IS slowly shrinking, and that is why they will even turn on their own at the drop of a hat in the vain to stir the pot amongst their ranks through fear and demagoguery to keep them in line. They are tightening their grip on their zealous core membership, only realizing to their horror that still more of them will inevitably slip through their fingers until they fatally smother their most loyal sycophants.

          They are DOOMED to ultimately fail. They either simply do not realize it yet, or they don’t want to.

  77. I think you should leave the censoring policy as is. I think that it is our individual personal responsibility to use our words as intelligently as possible knowing that the other side can and will read them and use them against us. You want to pummel them? Pummel them with reason – knowing that logic and reason is on our side, not with cheap insults.

    I think we are all guilty (everyone – me included) of posting the occasional humorous joke. As funny as it seems to us – it may not be funny to the fence sitters and certainly not to the disarmament team and those people will be reading them.

    • I agree.

      And quite frankly, if someone is looking for troll comments or posts taken out of context to use in a smoke and mirrors fashion, they will always find them.

  78. My general advice: you will never be able to please everyone so prioritize your site’s content to your target audience.

    Specifically, I encourage The Truth About Guns to delete comments that are vulgar or whose primary purpose is to insult someone. Insults do not advance our goals and are actually counter-productive when we waist our limited time reading comments that have no substance whatsoever.

    And another thing related to my above suggestion: we must reach people with the facts at the earliest age possible. The sooner we teach people the truth about the world, the better off we are. That being the case, it could be very informative for people even as young as age 14 to begin reading and learning The Truth About Guns. Thus, it is my hope that we maintain content on this website that is suitable for even a 14 year old to read. I am happy to say that 99% of the articles and comments are suitable for 14 year old readers. I would be even happier to know that the TTAG staff will do their best to edit (not necessarily delete) content to that end.

    This means that people can be very passionate in their responses. They can express their feelings about anything. And if they cross the line into vulgar or insulting comments that you would not want your 14 year old child to read, then delete it.

  79. Profanity filter? Sure. It’d improve the search results. Outright deleting comments? No, unless they get out of line or offer no more than name calling.

    That said, everyone here needs to strive to be the more reasoned, rational, and respectful person. Calling people bitches, posting their home addresses, constantly talking about how you want them to blow you, and generally acting like a dick don’t help. That’s exactly what they want you to do. It looks bad and fits the uneducated, violent, backwards hillbilly stereotype some like to portray.

    People acting in such a manner do a disservice to our efforts to maintain and retake our 2A rights. You give the opposition more ammo, drive away fence sitters, make real useful conversations impossible, and discourage less vitriolic allies from speaking up for fear of being lumped in with such juvenile behavior.

    You want to draw more votes in? You want to protect our rights? Then come armed with reasoned arguments that debunk anything they can throw at you. Be rational, be respectful, and be better.

  80. I would like to see this site’s comments moderated to keep them civil, rational and courteous. Don’t give ammunition to the enemies of justice and freedom by allowing them to misrepresent us as a bunch of neanderthals.

  81. F*ck the antis. I’ll be polite to people I respect. I don’t respect anyone trying to disarm me and repeal the 2nd amendment. Period. F*ck MDA and f*ck MAIG. There is no point in being polite with these people. Culture wars are to the death. Ok. I’m done. Sorry Matt in Fl if you have to delete this.

  82. Let comments stand. If they link to the site then readers may also read other comments of a less “personal” nature to the pro gun side 🙂 We have enough sites where you cannot speak your mind. Plus it generates traffic for the site. Life is good.

  83. The second you decide to censor opinion, you become the thing we hate most. Enemies of freedom and free speech. It doesn’t matter how small it starts out, it will always progress to the point where Kim-Jong Un and Hitler are phoning you to give you a pat on the back for ‘keeping the peace’. The point where we are ‘allowed’ detachable magazines with an ammo limit of 1 round. Reason? You wanted detachable magazines didn’t you? There you go.

    People will always say what they’re going to say.

    Just delete the ones being vulgar for the sake of vulgarity. It’s stupid and unfunny. And that makes all POTG look like retards, casting further doubt on to whether or not we can be trusted with firearms. Period.

    Also, is that a Glock strapped to the soldier’s flamethrower?

  84. We acuse them of not having a rational argument. We have rationality on our side. If you allow DirkDiggler to paint us with this brush, the portrait they will see will not be rational arguments. It will be that same image problem we have had for years.
    One of the reasons we lose is image problems. Rights are easy to take from the inferior.

    • of course, I could play the race card on you . . . . . but instead, what is your beef when I posted the corporate HQ address of the organization and suggested a camera crew visit? They have no problem organizing protests in front of the NRA’s HQ and as a life member of that proud organization, I am offended.

      oh, and Shannon is a racist.

  85. Whether or not gun control activists cross the line is irrelevant; gun rights advocates shouldn’t stoop to that level. We may not like it, but taking the high road is necessary. We can point to the gun control activists who call for the death of NRA members and their children. Let’s not give them the same ammunition.

    That said; it is up to every individual to exercise their First Amendment rights responsibly. Don’t change your policy.

    Someone once said to me, “You’ve no power until they attack you in the press.”

    Congratulations, Robert! Clearly, you have power. Don’t abuse it.

  86. No. Having been called everything from a racist, psychopathic killer to a potential rapeist for standing up for what I believe in, I find it insulting that these people got upset over a little name calling. No we do not have to be nice to these people, especially since they would block or delete any critical post or comment on their websites/social networking accounts regardless of context.

  87. You can have my uncensored TTAG comments when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

    I’ve tried logic and reason with these people. It doesn’t work, since they don’t arrive at their conclusions using logic and reason. These are people who want you jailed or killed for exercising rights you enjoy now as a matter of routine.

    Think about that. THEY WANT US ALL IN JAIL OR KILLED IF WE DON’T GO ALONG WITH THEIR GRAND SCHEMES. If you have a mag that holds over a certain number of rounds, they want you jailed or killed. If you loan your gun to a buddy for the weekend, they want you jailed or killed. Hell, if you have a “barrel shroud”, while NOT EVEN KNOWING WHAT THAT IS, they want you JAILED OR KILLED.

    Does this sound like the type of person that should be dictating posting policy on TTAG? Crazy. Unfathomable, to me.

    Besides, it’s been proven time and time again that if we don’t give them a reason to hate us, they’ll for damn sure make one up.

    Politeness, deference, respect, blah, blah, blah. I fully believe we are at war with these people. It’s not a shooting war (lucky for them), nor do I ever hope for it to be, but it is war nonetheless. Don’t fight that war by the enemy’s rules.

    They don’t respect logic and reason, so let’s try batshit crazy for a while and see if that gets under their skin.

    Seems to be working pretty well so far….

  88. So, if we stop vilifying and name-calling the anti-gun people, like MDA, and they continue to demonize and vilify us (as they are only too glad to do as amply proven in past history), does that make us “better” than them…or just willing targets for their verbal feces throwing?

    We have said they are wrong and backed it up with facts. They respond with spurious twists on facts and made-up “facts”. We have responded to their arguments reasonably and logically, again backing up our positions with facts and historical context, and they have responded with hysterical accusations and “bloody shirt waving”.

    There are times when I read comments I think are inappropriate and excessive from our side, but overall, we are arguing with people who have no argument except fear-mongering and spurious propaganda grounded in emotional hysteria. They have no argument because their agenda, disarming the citizenry, has no real purpose except imposing absolute control over the population by The State. That is why the argument never settles and the poo flinging will continue to be a part of it. It has nothing to do with rational discourse, nor “Public Safety”, and everything to do with subduing The People to advance the destruction of The Republic.

    The anti-gun people have no qualms leaving School Children vulnerable to attack, don’t care one bit about how many young people in the urban ghettos kill each other and innocent bystanders at will, nor give a damn about how many women are raped and violated because they cannot legally own a gun to defend themselves in some major municipalities, and the list goes on and on.

    So, “No!” don’t change your policy. It won’t really matter if you did because the invective will go on (because it is all the anti-gun people really have), and I get the feeling some people who comment here get relief from engaging in it because the overall conflict is so damned frustrating…

  89. Wow, that’s the most posts that I’ve seen in awhile! As they get to use their 1st Amendment rights so should we. In this day and age you better have a thick skin. Just because you think something is vulgar or inappropriate doesn’t mean that others do. Someone saying you use your husband as a doormat is beyond tame, since about the 1950’s. I’m tired of this always PC crap. I say what I want as should others. It just goes to show how these types have too much time on their hands. With all the gun hate don’t they have something better to do? You want me to hurt your feelings old school? When you get done scrubbing my toilet do my dishes and make my dinner! Really, look up sarcasm and joke in a dictionary. If you are really looking to be offended watch an Andrew Dice Clay show or listen to some gangsta rap.

    • Oh look, no curse words! Leave comments alone. People have a right to be angry. Anger is like a truth serum, people really say what is on their mind when they’re furious. So not only do they want to repeal the 2nd but also enact a law against feelings.

  90. I didn’t realize doing the right thing was contingent on what your opponents have done first. Thanks, that really clears it up.

    When, for example, Loub says above, “I’m sick of being nice to these emotion baiting f*cktrd dimwits!” that’s cool, roll with it. But then he continues, “So at this point I only want to whip it out and tell the b*tch to blow me! I’ll give the broad the action she demands!” and instantly becomes a total sh*thead.

    Seriously, saying doxxing and threatening comments are wrong and the dumb@ss opinions of those who do that sh*t are not welcome here is not an 1A issue. I see it on a lot of other sites I go to: if you want to associate with us, then be a base-level decent human being like everyone else here. Because that sh*t is above and beyond flaming. I also agree with Bob above in that it doesn’t make sense to consider certain comments deletable when directed toward TTAG commenters, but ok when directed to antis. It either is ok, or it’s not.

    There are female gun supporters, myself sort of included (the Dude gets me to read posts here pretty often), who don’t feel welcome in the pro-gun community when the b*tches and c*unts and sexual assault jokes start flying.

    Seriously, forget about “giving ammunition to the enemy,” how about chipping away at group cohesion? Men of honor don’t want nitwits running around their ankles while trying to have a grown up conversation or God forbid representing them to the outside world. And I’m sure a pro-gun person who’s been raped, or an anti just changing their mind because of it, is just jumping at the chance to ally themselves with a douchcanoe who makes rape jokes (hint: they’re not). Cutting back on all that only strengthens the troops.

  91. I think TTAG is more than just a typical forum. It’s more of an educational website. Between the gun reviews and editorials on the current fight to protect the 2A, it is an invaluable resource. Personally I think Robert F’s last couple of articles covering the Alamo pro-gun rally, and observations about MDA, touched a nerve with them. Their natural response was to try and claim that they and they alone have the moral high-ground. It’s kind of like doing an intervention for a hoarder at their packed home, but the hoarder tries to point out that YOU are the one with the problem by evidence that you have two pens in your shirt pocket.

    As for the posts, keep the posts classy and appropriate. Think if it adds to the conversation. Remember that while we may not change MDA’s mind, there might be a few 14 year olds, college students, or others new to the gun scene.

    • I agree with the “keep it classy” form of moderation, since I believe TTAG can fill a need as a place to do more than vent and air vulgar views in public.
      One of the reasons many people own firearms is to defend and protect those near and dear to them. Perhaps to some this “protection” includes gratuitous rants and vulgarities in front of them, but I don’t think that is the example we should hold to.
      Thanks for asking; my urging is for deleting vulgarities and /ad hominem/s.

  92. I don’t think it’s a bad idea. But I wouldn’t do it because of some straw man argument. If it were my site I’d be doing some censoring anyway, though.

    But it’s not my site. So do what feels right to you.

  93. just demonstrating the power of the interwebz: so Shannon Watts (nee Shannon Renee Marmion, DOB 1971) ( had a Missouri traffic ticket from 5/2/96 (around graduation time from Missouri-Columbia) (she was doing 84 in a 70) and failed to appear in court. A warrant was issued for her arrest. She finally “appeared” in April 1997 and paid the fine. ( – Tsk tsk tsk Shannon. You are a criminal!!!!

    2012 W ASH APT K8
    COLUMBIA, MO 65203

    Year of Birth: 1971

    04/18/1997 Guilty Plea Written

    Sentencing Hearing Held
    SNTNCD-Defendant sentenced; State appears by Prosecuting Attorney. Def. appears. Charge 001 : SPEED POINT 84/70 ;

    Hearing Held
    CDSPSD-Case disposed in court; Appearance not required. ;

    Defendant Sentenced

    Judgment Entered

    04/04/1997 Warrant Served
    WARRET-Warrant served and returned

    Hearing Scheduled
    State to appear Def to appear ;

    11/26/1996 Warrant Issued
    WARISS-Warrant Issued

    08/21/1996 Arraignment Scheduled
    CTNUIC-Arraignment continued by court; State to appear Def to appear ;

    05/02/1996 Information Filed

    Arraignment Scheduled
    ARGNSF-Arraignment Sched. at filing

    Bond- Other Bond Posted
    BNDPST-Bond Posted

  94. RF…dude…you do understand, don”t you, that they’re just not that into you?

    A supposedly-national organization suckling at Bloomberg’s hind teat has seen fit to join battle with a commenter(!) of yours who uses the anonymous screen name of Dirk Diggler. In anyone’s book, that’s a ‘win’ for TTAG.

    (No offense intended, DD; you’re a bit over the top, but in a good way.)

    • none taken. Shannon is a racist and that makes me react in a way that further endears her to me. . . . of course, if I call her home number, she will call the po-po. . . . . decisions decisions decisions.

  95. I just spent the last hour and change reading all the replies to this post. Where to begin?

    Well…..first thing I noticed was MDA’s stunningly bigoted libel on Jeff Cooper. And he’s dead, in case you didn’t happen to know. Funny thing is, were he still alive, I bet they wouldn’t have had the guts to say what they did. Like cowards, only professional victims do that. Because they’re cut from the same sort of cloth.

    As to site policy, my recommendation is to refrain from censoring anything whatsoever, except spam. That’s part of what makes this site so interesting and useful – most of the participants are sufficiently clever and intelligent that censorship isn’t necessary. Profanity filter? Ehhh up to you, Robert. Me personally, it doesn’t bother me. If I want to say fuck with a U or V, I’ll probably say it however I like anyway. It’s your call.

    Shannon Watts is simply a proponent of what I call the culture of victimology. Which is pretty ironic in this particular case vis-a-vis Dirk Diggler, who if I’m not mistaken happens to be black. Why mention this? Well, because it’s pretty well known that most blacks suscribe to said culture of victimology – that’s how the the more socialist/authoritarian Democrats have stayed in political power the past several decades – all that Great Society stuff. Dirk, God bless him, doesn’t pander to that. So Shannon is not only a PV (professional victim), she’s also a bigot as well. Surprise, surprise. Besides, as has been pointed out, it’s HER fault, and no one else’s, for registering her corporation at her home address – any lawyer worth their salt would have been appalled and rebuked her foolishness. Whatever she got or gets, she had it coming.

    Finally, in closing, I believe it was Ralph who said that ”all culture wars are to the death.” I’m going to be very blunt and tell the cold, hard truth here. He is absolutely correct. I am a peaceable person and seek no conflict whatsoever, but the facts are beyond debate. These people want us dead. Or at least if not dead, then subjugated just as surely as the Nazis wanted the Jews and the Slavs (‘untermeschen’) subjugated for ‘Lebensraum.’ I will fight this growing cancer by any and all legal means available but if it ever comes to it I will have no hesitation or compunction about taking up my rifle and using it as a weapon of this war to kill our enemies. That’s not a threat, that’s just the facts. Because that is what happens in a civil war. And I’m reasonably confident in saying that I speak for most all of us in that regard, because you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. If you say you will not fight when you still have a chance, then you may have to fight when you have no chance, because otherwise you will perish a slave. Or something like that. That Churchill fella….smart guy, he was.


    • Ironically, my post is “awaiting moderation.”

      God, not all night long I hope!

      Because that would just drive me up the wall 🙂


    • I believe Shannon Watts would not call me Black, but rather “the help” or “colored”. not to be picky and all.

  96. Having read a few comments, no, RF. You shouldn’t change a thing. They hate us thru and thru. F*ck them. And with that, a call to the bullpen. DIRK, YOU’RE UP!

    • it is a bit late to put a booty call in and John might not like me pointing out that he is a cuckold. . .

      however I did pick up some cigars, a bottle of bourbon and some “party favors” should Shannon want to party.

  97. Robert – you need to configure the website to redirect links from known anti-2A sites to a special web page. Educate them before letting them loose.

    It’s possible to even see the URL of the page that brought them here, so you could direct them to a specific educational response to antagonistic morons like that above.

  98. I have nothing to say that others haven’t said already.

    +1 vote for erring on the side of freedom of speech (it’s one of the things that separates us from them)

    +1 voice saying that they will say nasty things about us no matter what.

    +1 for Dirk Diggler being my hero of the week.

  99. Short answer: No.

    The obstructionist gun control lobby has never at any time nor under any circumstance paid any of us the same courtesy when their rabid lap dogs nip at our heels for absolutely no reason whatsoever in their ever-shrinking enclaves of insanity, either. They even go so far as to, more often than not, shut down their public comments completely or even out-right ban anyone and everyone who steps out of line with their perverse fascist group-think.

    They openly declare war on us each and every time they even subtly allude to gun control in any way, shape, or form.

    They publish the addresses of law-abiding citizens, which subsequently have crimes committed against them — this is a verifiable and immutable fact.

    They openly wish death upon us and our families, and call for our arrest and summary execution for crimes we did not commit.

    They are guilty of every transgression they accuse us of committing and oh so much more.

    They have already made their intentions clear: ban all guns — all of them — and confiscate them. By force if necessary.

    Let those comments remain for all to see. “Inflammatory” comments towards the obstructionist gun control lobby, no matter how vile or horrible, are only pointing out the obvious truth.

    In conclusion, turn about is fair play.

  100. I was shocked when I read the following statement in The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence’s blog: “Perhaps Farago is unaware that violence—like his pointed accusations—is used as a way of demeaning and controlling women, to keep them in a subordinate position to men. Or maybe he simply fails to appreciate irony”. Let me get this straight: the author equates words of disagreement with “violence” against women. Wow. That’s a real stretch. Women complain that men don’t take them seriously, and then turn around and make statements like this.

  101. At the risk of repeating what others may have already said, why delete the comments the other side mentioned? Too bad that their sensibilities are offended. I think it IS very revealing though, and shows how weak their position truly is, that they have to resort to “the bad men said mean things” instead of staying on message. They’re trying to promote the myth that gun guys are drooling cave men who want to shoot up the place and are looking for ANY excuse to do so. Meanwhile ignoring the fact that if we were, in fact, so critically violent, they would be rabidly insane to criticize us. In point of fact, if it were true, there’d be no gun grabbers left, because the grabbers have managed to trample the rights of gun owners of every set, sect and subset, even the hunters (in CA anyway). There’d also probably be a lot of new congressman and senators who were pro-gun. I posit that, since the grabbers continue to draw breath, that there premise of pro-gun folks just “itching to kill” is not only faulty, but fraudulent.

  102. My take is: All comments should be left up, so long as they contain ANY editorial content whatsoever. Leave the delete key for the comments that are nothing but ridicule, abuse and profanity, regardless of the viewpoint. That serves no one. But even content like; “Farago got down and dirty”, “Farago then mocked her”, “insurrectionist pro-gun groups “, and so on, are still valuable. It is very easy for anyone with a functional brain cell to go read the story and prove her opinion to be ridiculous claptrap. Thus it has value in the sense, “by reading it, we can learn not to listen to fearmongers like her.”
    That was one of the best articles you have ever produced, including the way to help these unfortunate ones out of their phobias. But, as always, one can lead the sheep to knowledge, but one cannot FORCE them to learn. MANY will be so deep in their insanity that no reason or logic can penetrate. They have made their choice, and it is up to us to respect that, no matter HOW bad, and indeed insane, we know that choice to be…

  103. Please. This is her form of narcissism – she gets to take the morale high-ground while announcing to her peers that a bunch of knuckle-draggers think she’s hot. She’s eating this up.

    Besides, I have seen actual calls for violence from not just anti-gun commenters, but from the journalists, politicians and bloggers that provide them their platform for hatred.

    In keeping with this I say, Fuck’em!

  104. Hey, If you ever want to email all of your representatives automatically, the Mom’s have a really useful link on their page:

    You can put in your zipcode and it will automatically configure to send a message to your particular government officials.

    You can delete their subject line and their anti-gun message and put in your own subject line and pro gun message!

    Use their bandwidth to spread the truth about guns and let your voice be heard!



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here