Moms Demand Action Bully ABC to Keep Pro-Gun Voice Off ‘The View’


Dana Loesch works for TheBlazeTV. She’s about as pro-gun as it gets. So when news got out that she’d be co-hosting daytime gabfest The View this week on ABC’s nationally syndicated network, the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex collectively wigged out and started pulling every trick in the book to try and keep her off the air. It’s a strategy we’ve seen used before to try and keep our own Robert Farago off CNN, actually. Better to silence someone with whom you disagree than engaging in honest and open debate. And now they’re at it again . . .

Back in November, CNN reached out to Robert to come on a show and talk about the events of the day. Robert tweeted about it, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence immediately responded, calling RF an “insurrectionist & misogynist.” and demanded that he be stopped from going on the air.

A super typhoon in the Philippines succeeded where CSGV’s contempt for anyone who opposes their opinion failed, but it gave Michael Bloomberg’s Shannon Watts, Moms Demand Action’s telegenic mouthpiece, a blueprint for what to do the next time they want someone silenced.

This time it’s Dana Loesch is in the crosshairs. And MDA isn’t playing nice. Shannon is throwing every pejorative she can conjure up at Loesch, and in so doing she’s only highlighting the insanity of her position. From TheBlaze:

Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action, launched her own Twitter campaign on Saturday in protest of Loesch’s upcoming gig on “The View.”

In addition to re-tweeting messaging calling Loesch a “pro-gun extremist,” “hate monger,” and “gun bully,” Watts also repeatedly messaged the official Twitter account of “The View” to express her disappointment in the show for giving someone a platform who she happens to disagree with.

Watts also claimed that Loesch is a paid “shill” of firearms manufacturer Magpul.

Gun control advocates like Watts hate free speech. Or, more specifically, any speech that doesn’t contribute to their cause. It’s the reason that every YouTube channel, Facebook page and other new media venue they operate either has comments disabled or is carefully monitored to make sure that only comments that fit their narrative make it through and are posted.

They’re so out of touch with reality that the only way they can maintain their base of support is by silencing all opposition and keeping their supporters in an echo chamber filled with their gun-grabbing propaganda. Toward that end, they need to keep anyone with an opinion that goes against their own off daytime TV.

Shannon’s cookie-cutter approach is fairly obvious:

  1. Paint herself as the white knight of a good cause, her opponent as an uncaring and evil “gun bully.”
  2. Label anyone who opposes her as an “extremist.” Never mind that Shannon herself is an extremist thanks to her views on gun control. She smears anyone who disagrees with her as out of touch with “most Americans,” the scary “other” who must be shunned.
  3. Claim her opposition is getting money from the big bad gun industry, no matter what the facts may be.

It’s that last one that Shannon is relying on to get the most traction.

Back when banning cigarettes was the cause du jour, the most effective means of discrediting any opposition was the argument that they were being paid by the big tobacco companies for their position on the issue. It not only evoked the deeply seated hatred liberals have for big corporations and rich people (the one percenters!) in general, but it also painted them as uncaring “merchants of death,” trying to buy their way out of the situation without a care for the lives of their customers.

Use the same strategy and add to claims that guns are particularly dangerous to children and you come to realize that Shannon Watts is simply another Rob Reiner with fewer cheeseburgers under her belt.

That may have been an effective strategy for cigarettes, but there’s a problem with using the same approach when it comes to guns: the facts don’t support the gun control advocates’ claims. There is no “gun violence epidemic” – they made it up. Guns save lives. And despite Shannon Watts’ oh-so-earnestly-delivered protestations, “children” are not being slaughtered by guns. But the gun control advocates couldn’t possibly care less about facts. It’s the emotions the issue raises that they’re after. And in their minds, banning civilian ownership of guns is the right thing to do, no matter what the numbers actually say.

That’s why Watts is pressing so hard to keep Dana Loesch off The View. A reasoned, well-stated argument in favor of armed personal defense delivered to an audience of moms can’t be allowed. She can’t have actual facts getting out, and she’s willing to do anything and everything to discredit MDA’s opposition to muzzle them. Because if the kind of people who watch The View hear the facts – and think about what they mean – people like Shannon Watts are sunk.


  1. avatar disthunder says:

    Good looking out, Nick. One thing, tho- I doubt many of the AI are big Viewwatchers (at least in public), but we can burn up an inbox like nobody’s business. Suggestions?

      1. avatar Gyufygy says:

        That’s interesting to read. Also, Behar seems like a jerk. Never let the guest finish his sentence.

        1. avatar cubby123 says:

          She is a loud mouth liberal who never shuts up and cuts off her quests.

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          Because it’s HER roost. The Female Social Matrix. If you watch (to the extent you can force yourself to) you will start to notice that, no matter who is present, she will be the most centrist of the group.

          I was always convinced she was Jewish, but in fact I think she’s Catholic. Her given surname is Occhiuto, but her first husband was Joe Behar, which is a rare Irish surname, I think.

        3. avatar JoshuaS says:

          Actually she is agnostic. Which 99% of the time means I want to sound intelligent but not have to actually hold anything/o any thinking (the rare agnostic that is intelligent tends not to be very pushy about his belief in the inability to know if he is right)

        4. avatar William Burke says:

          I meant Catholic by birth. I mistakenly thought it was obvious. I actually find it is Christians and Atheists who are “pushy” about their beliefs, while agnostics, being smart enough (by virtue of being agnostics) maintain the only truly honest position: that there is no way of knowing of God exists. And of course, there is none. Belief is not knowing.

          The agnostic thus holds the tenable position, while believers and disbelievers do not. And I have not known any to be “pushy” about their position, not at all. I include myself, of course.

        5. avatar Cliff H says:

          “…the rare agnostic that is intelligent tends not to be very pushy about his belief in the inability to know if he is right…”

          Actually, we intelligent agnostics are not pushy about anyone’s beliefs BECAUSE of the inability to know if religionists, atheists or agnostics are right. The very definition of FAITH is to believe something is true even if you have no proof and both religionists and atheists are guilty of this.

        6. avatar Paul G says:

          Actually faith is the ability to hold sonething as true or believable despite less than 100% proof on the matter. Everyone exhibits faith to some degree in every facet of life. We have faith we will live through the night, for example, despite the uncertainty in such an assumption. Many agnostics cannot fathom that faith is part of every life, they equate faith wrongly as blind faith. Blind faith requires no evidence for belief, regular faith bridges the gap between evidence and absolute proof.

        7. avatar shawn says:

          Also Agnostics dont kill in the name of God like the Christians have done or allow those who sexually abuse kids to get away with it. One more thing, I believe in myself and take responsibility for my actions. Dont need a religious faith to do that.

        8. avatar tdiinva says:


          Athiests and agnostics just kill in the name of the Aryan race or the Prolitariat.

        9. avatar William Burke says:

          How many have I killed?

        10. avatar Michael B. says:

          As an atheist, I typically don’t trust leftist atheists. They have replaced the concept of god with government and since heaven does not really exist they want to create one here on Earth. They are far more dangerous and scary than any backwater snake handler.

        11. avatar Mister Fleas says:

          shawn said:
          Also Agnostics dont kill in the name of God like the Christians have done or allow those who sexually abuse kids to get away with it.”

          Godless communist government killed about 85 to 100 million people in the 20th century alone. Genocides, fatal deportations, artificial famines, murderous forced labor, bloody purges, etc. Agnostics don’t in the name of God, they kill nonetheless.

        12. avatar Rick says:

          “Godless” =/= “Atheist”

        13. avatar William Burke says:

          “Godless” and “atheist” are totally separate things. A godless person is one who lives without need of religious belief; an atheist DECLARES that there is no God.

          An agnostic maintains merely that it is impossible to know either way, with any certainty.

        14. avatar SteveInCO says:

          tdiinva said:

          “Athiests and agnostics just kill in the name of the Aryan race or the Prolitariat.”

          Hitler was not an atheist. There are dozens (if not more) of his quotes of religious justifications for what he did (he was apparently a Catholic). Does that make all catholics mass murderers? Nope.

          You correctly point out that even communism did not murder in the name of ThereAintNoGod; they murdered to try to make their screwed up economic system work.

        15. avatar tdiinva says:


          Yes, Hitler was a pagan who had as much contempt for Christians as he did for Jews. After all Christianity is just the next stage of Judaism. He did admire Islam as fighting religion. This idea that Hitler was a believer is communist agitprop.

          By the way I am in Loveland this week.

        16. avatar Kyle says:

          Communism was a religion as well, but an atheistic religion. Atheist does not mean non-religious. It was a religion of the State, where the State is the god, and it promises a paradise here on Earth, and is willing to kill and slaughter to achieve said paradise.

          As for Hitler, Hitler did make comments about god and was seen in Catholic churches, but this was most likely a plot to win the Catholic vote.

  2. avatar JeffR says:

    The Super Bowl ad for 24, which was simply a long close-up on a Sig, was kind of ironic.

    1. avatar rnh05002 says:

      H&K P30. Yep, very ironic.

    2. avatar APBTFan says:

      Noticed that too.

      1. avatar Backyardsniper says:

        Notice that when its action was racked, no rounds were in the magazine?

        1. avatar PhoenixNFA says:

          may want to look again. looks like a nickle-plated round of some kind, like hornady critical duty.

    3. avatar Fred says:

      It was a P30 in .40, the same as the one on my hip. I had to look it up on the internet later, but it is a .40 cal P30.

    4. avatar Noah says:

      Yeah, same here. Veteran talking about how he loves his family and wants to protect them via a rifle? Aw, geez, that’s offensive. Just sickening. Guns commit mass shootings. Ban it.
      Whereas a television-show ad with I-don’t-know-how-many-people-getting-shot? There were quite a few.

      1. avatar BDub says:

        It wasn’t banned! It was not accepted for airing – and not because it was offensive…IT WAS A DOWNER! (and not particularly well produced). Nobody watching the Superbowl wants to see that, and since they have all the submissions they can hope to choose from, it stands to reason the ones that are least palatable and are NOT going to get accepted.

        Its not always about the politics.

    5. avatar shawn says:

      All of you who watched the SB are a bunch of hypocrites.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Go back to bed. And no drink of water for you, no sir.

      2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        But, but, but… it’s the Super Bowl, I cannot be expected to stand by my convictions and principles when there is entertainment afoot!

        1. avatar tommyr says:

          It’s actually the Superb Owl. They just put them both together.

  3. avatar James P Barnett Jr says:

    Lighten up. Stop seeing a boogeyman behind every tree.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Are you addressing that to Shannon Watts (which would make sense) or someone here?

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        He’s trolling, so take a guess.

        1. avatar JeffR says:

          Does mikeynumbers have a new login and upgraded approach?

        2. avatar shawn says:

          So is everyone who has a different thought a troll. By calling one a troll you are doing exactly what shannon is doing.

        3. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          Oh silly Shawn, you think this person is here for actual debate. That is so cute. He is doing exactly what most other hardcore anti-gunners do on gun blogs: “I agree with you all, but”… He has now made several comments on various threads with that theme. Nobody here is buying what he’s selling. If he wants to have a debate he should start from his real position, not some false premise to try and gain standing. That is trolling.

      2. avatar Ben says:

        I think he’s(?) MDA’s attempt to plant a “moderate, common sense” voice (read: troll) in the comment section here. Fishy-fishy-fishy-fish.

        1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          I’m waiting for a 30 cal clip comment from him. :snicker:

        2. avatar Cliff H says:

          TTAG is THE premiere firearms blog on the Interwebz. We need to be extra careful that we always get our firearms terminology right. The correct term is 30 MAGAZINE clip.

        3. avatar Jeff says:

          uh excuse me Cliff, that is a detachable 30 round magazine bullet clip

    2. avatar ropingdown says:

      Don’t give me that Balogna….

    3. avatar Randy Drescher says:

      Can we hear the one about how you don’t want our self defense guns? That never gets old…or would you see right through that, Randy

  4. avatar SteveInCO says:

    I am not sure what is more infuriating–that these Mothers are against the right to self-defense, or that they are so thuggish in their tactics in trying to simply shut out the other side of the debate.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Fascist tactics are by definition thuggish.

  5. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Watts is trying to bully the wrong gal. Loesch has this whole social media thing down pat.

  6. avatar TraderRLH says:

    Said it before, Dana is “the one”. She is the antidote to Shannon Watts and any like her. No surprise that they’re so scared of her.

    1. They are trying to do a Sarah Palin on her.

      1. avatar Samuel Leoon Suggs says:

        Well she’s more articulate than Sara Palin so I say let the try!

  7. avatar LC Judas says:

    Is this case closed or are we talking ongoing social media fire fight?

  8. avatar Javier says:

    I can’t wait for the word bully to go away. So overused it’s worse than operator.

    1. avatar disthunder says:

      There was to be a way to combine them into a super-term. Like Dynamic Bully Tactical Nut Operator Extremist.

      Oh and Shannon: go pound sand. Nobody outside your twitter feed gives a damn what you think. If TTAG didn’t have a boner for you, I wouldn’t know you existed.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        Ditto this. I pay attention, work in a large office and with the public, read the news every morning and receive emails alerts from CCAA Second Defense, Buckeye Firearms and a few other organizations and I have never, not one time ever heard a reference to Shannon Watts or MDA outside of TTAG. If I were inclined to conspiracy theories I’d say that TTAG made her/them up. I’m on the fence whether keeping us informed about MDAs nefarious acts is excellent reporting or if it’s giving MDA a larger platform than they could possibly rate elsewhere. I’m still on the side of it’s good to know who the enemy is and simply happy that MDA seems as impotent as could be both as a media campaign and certainly in terms of accomplishing anything.

        1. avatar Jeff says:

          Have seen her on TV time to time, at which point she is more or less a nameless commentator that most people wouldn’t be able to pick out a lineup.

          The real problem, and this is why TTAG focuses on her, is that MDA and MAIG have real pull with the female slice of the anti-gun movement, and they do real work on generating a game plan and method to get them out and protesting.

          Even though a lot of times their numbers only amount to a handful, there are times when MDA gets a real good showing – like they did here in Washington state last week for testimony in support of WA UBC initiative I-594.

          Shannon and MDA remain a real threat, even if most people haven’t heard of her before.

        2. avatar DaveG says:

          Shannon Watts’ and her demanding moms succeeded at getting the “gun owners are not welcome” letter from Starbucks last fall, where CSGV and Brady had failed in the previous years of boycotts with the same stated goals.

          However, it still isn’t the illegal act of trespassing she wanted. Anyone wanna meet up for a cup of Pike’s? 😀

    2. avatar DJ says:

      Coming soon – Commando Bob’s Bully Operator course. We’ll teach you to fight like a Seahawk beating a Bronco, but with less commercial breaks.

      1. avatar Model 31 says:

        Yea, lots of commercials, I thought I had switched over to a NASCAR race for a minute but then realized it wasn’t the same four viagra, sprint, nationwide and goodyear commercials over and over and over.

      2. avatar David says:

        Bully as fvck

    3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Tactical is the worst by far, I hate that word, it’s been completely bastardized.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        When used on a label, it simply means the price has been jacked up 10-100 percent. Tactical socks? Tactical belly button lint?

        1. avatar JaxD says:

          Tactical belly button lint is used as emergency fire starter. Surprised you did not know that.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Oh. Well in that case.

          (Orders 600 cases.)

        3. avatar William Burke says:

          I’ve been noticing the term “tactical” slowly being replaced by “duty”. The word, “duty”, resonates within male society, and very strongly.

        4. avatar Rick says:

          It’s like “marine” or “aviation” or “high-performance.”

        5. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

          I need a t-shirt that properly labels the ‘tactical ballast’ i carry on my midsection.

        6. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          I have some tactical toe nail clippings from a tactician before a tactical operations for sale… if anyone is interested… Tactical!

  9. avatar Chris says:

    we need to bring back the this is my rifle pictures and hit up MDA’s twitter with all of them. see how fast they can take them down and cry @MDA #shannonwattstherealbully #boombergspuppet #squeakywheelgetstheoil #thatgirlknowshowtowhine

    1. avatar colby says:

      Or the I am a gun owner pics

      1. avatar Chris says:

        +1 those are actually the ones I meant haha “this is my rife” might create a shortage on toilet paper in their headquarters and a big laundry bill

        1. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

          “this is my rifle, this is my gun; one is for fighting, and a picture of one violated the terms-of-service…”

  10. avatar Excedrine says:

    Dana Loesch should also mention this if and when she debuts on The View and really, truly ream them as hard as she possibly can for it. If she reads this article and takes notes, she’ll have the ammunition she needs to embarrass them on national television.

    Let’s just hope the producers value Free Speech over lunatic fringe anti-rights sock-puppets. I’m not holding my breath, though.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      It’s all about generating ratings numbers. ABC is hoping that airing any side of the RKBA controversy will get millions of rabid anti – and pro-RKBA viewers watching. And the more free publicity the better.

  11. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    I don’t watch the view but might if Dana was in it.
    Let’s think about that, mane their ratings aren’t great and feel they need more diversity.
    Shannon has blown a vein because as you stated, facts about freedom and liberty with armed self defense thrown in, well gosh we can’t have that now can we!
    I hope she goes on and blows the views ratings through the roof!

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      What Shannon may have accomplished, if she does not succeed in her efforts to have Dana blocked, is to have more people than usual watch The View just to see what all the fuss was about.

  12. avatar ccdwguy says:

    Maybe we should bombard ABC and The View that if Shannon feels so strongly they should have both of them on together…that would be interesting and Dana would bury her in facts and reality. Oh, for someone else Shannon lives in Zionsville, IN yuppie heaven and is probably a 1%’r.

    1. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

      Dana is St. Louis’ gift to conservatism. Smart. Fiesty. And hot as any Israrli supermodel, IMHO. She’d chew Shannon into

    2. avatar Excedrine says:

      It might (not) surprise you to know that Shannon Watts did in fact pull in over $1M a year whilst working PR for the Obamas, being that she’s a corporate executive herself. That and the fact that neither she nor her husband have fallen on hard times in the last decade or so if their 1099s are anything to go by.

      It makes me giggle when they try to look down their noses at us, regardless of the fact that we have always and will always stand head-and-shoulders above her and anybody else that shares her sexist, racist, anti-rights, and anti-Humanist world-view.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        My next blockbuster documentary: THE SHANNON WATTS STORY: Millionaire and Bad in Bed.

        Hi, sweetheart!

        1. avatar peirsonb says:

          ….picturing an interview with Dirk sitting in the shadows with an electronically altered voice…

      2. avatar shawn says:

        WLP makes the same.

    3. avatar Jim R says:

      Ms. Watts can afford her own team of armed security. She doesn’t need a gun, so neither does anyone else!

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        I’m pretty sure the security team is paid for my the Midget Despot himself, M. Bloomberg.

        Be glad she doesn’t know one of them is ours. 😉

    4. avatar Roscoe says:

      Watts would never dare appear on an open forum discussion in those circumstances unless it was moderated by an anti ally who could control her opponents contributions. Otherwise Watts would risk being exposed as a shallow shrill with no substance.

      And vacant PR; it’s the role Watts is familiar with and best at; she’s done it all her life.

      Bottom line, Herr Bloomberg would never let Watts risk exposing the vacancy of their collective message on national TV, particularly in front of a viewership that mostly supports their cause.

      And the viewership is the main reason Watts is pulling out all the stops; they can’t stand having a well spoken, articulate pro gun spokeswoman addressing THEIR viewership with reason, logic and facts; it might open some eyes, particularly amongst those who have yet to hear the other side.

  13. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” – William F. Buckley

    1. avatar Phil in NYC says:


      1. avatar Pedro Of NYC says:


        1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          x 10

        2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          10 to the 10th.

        3. avatar Roscoe says:

          Yo’ Mama!

          /meaning no better/

    2. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

      x googolplex

      I’ve noticed that.

    3. avatar shawn says:

      Conservatives insult those who oppose. Btw, Beck, O’Reilly, & Rush are exactly defined by your definition.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        10 to the 10th.

        The measure of someone’s intelligence is directly proportional to how much they agree with me.

      2. avatar Rambeast says:

        Beck and Rush back up those insults with hard facts. The Progressives can not make such a claim.

        1. avatar Kyle in CT says:

          If by “hard facts” you mean carefully chosen facts that generally ignore conflicting evidence, then sure. Just because you agree with their politics doesn’t make them anything more than what they really are; entertainment. Sensationalism get eyeballs and ears, and that’s all they’re doing. Stupidity and greed know no political bounds.

        2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, and here I am, stuck in the middle with you…

        3. avatar Shawn says:

          Right, Beck and Fox never lied about how many people where at his rally in DC. Eventhough Fox clearly showed two different images of the people on the mall supposedly at his rally during two different seasons. Just admit it, both sides lie as much as the other.

        4. avatar Shawn says:

          You have to read the quote again…nothing said about facts. Here it for you “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” This is the exact definition of Beck, O’Reilly, and Rush except that you have to replace Liberals with Conservatives.

  14. avatar Mina says:

    You miss one small but very important point: the reason this is so infuriating to Shannon is that Dana is a woman and by her actions she is disturbing the hive … there are truly no words to describe the fury that one woman feels for another woman who refuses to toe the line on the swarm’s narrative.

    Ask me how I know.

    1. avatar Mk10108 says:

      Ok I”ll bite, How do you know?

    2. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      I would ask, but my wife goes through the same thing, so I have a good idea of what you’re going through. Hang tough though. My wife has finally convinced one of her anti-gun friends to go shooting next weekend.

    3. avatar Mina says:

      Mk10108: Don’t tell me you don’t get the implied message …. 😉

      1. avatar Mk10108 says:

        I’m just an old guy. As for the hive, I’m still working on that speed of light problem and I get out of the house when the Mrs. has a drunko party.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        He doesn’t. He must have married a mail-order bride. 😉

    4. avatar Mina says:

      I use the related terms “hive” and “swarm” … one of my favorite authors uses the term “crab basket”

      It’s all pretty much the same thing.

      Read about the female “crab basket”:

      1. avatar AmericanSpirit says:


        That’s an awful lot to process in one sitting, but… Suddenly I understand so many more things. Also jeeze, and whoa, again, still.

        I’m glad this information was passed along while I’m young and impressionable and only somewhat jaded. So many things that the women in my life have done that were crazy/weird in my view are now in proper context and make a little more sense (but unfortunately are mostly still crazy/weird).

        Thanks, Mina. Seriously. Thanks.

        A note to the men and gentlemen that peruse this site – you should absolutely read this if you ever plan on spending time in close proximity to women. In other words, [email protected]&$ing read it, you arrogant SOB that’s not reading yet.

        Except you, Dirk. We know you like the … How shall we say… extra spicy ladies out there with little real concern to what’s going on upstairs, except as it pertains in the sack. I wouldn’t want to spoil your fun.

        And I thought I was just gonna learn more about firearms and such here.

        1. avatar Mina says:

          You’re welcome. and just so everyone knows, bringing this type of information is the main reason I am here.

          We can’t fight against the gun grabbers without a complete understanding of what we are dealing with. That is just my personal take on it. 🙂

          Glad you liked the article, and thanks for stressing to the guys to read it, too. They really do need to read it.

      2. avatar Matt in FL says:

        Well, I’m older than AS, and less impressionable, and very jaded, but I still learned a few things. As he said, some things in my past suddenly make a lot more sense. Thanks.

      3. avatar Ing says:

        Mina, I’m glad you’re here. I’ve learned a lot by following your links. I think this one gives even better insight into our liberal/progressive foes than Anonymous Conservative. Liberal/progressive politics are the Female Social Matrix writ large.

        To everyone else who gets this far into the comments: READ THE ARTICLE. We need to know what we’re up against.

        1. avatar Mina says:

          The Anonymous Conservative’s stuff and the “red pill / game” stuff are related topics and very complimentary.

          Once you understand them both, it becomes obvious that dealing with the feminine mind is a lot like dealing with the Liberal mind with a few particular predictable “handles”.

          If every gun rights person learned both, the entire issue of gun rights would be resolved and I believe in a big way, the issue of male/masculine rights would also be resolved. I personally don’t think one can be solved without the other.

          Most men here are probably blissfully unware of the war against masculinity because they are “naturally” masculine men who don’t compromise for anyone, including their women. Most men don’t have it so good -witness the rise of Pajama Boy as the desired norm that obama and his ilk are pushing. Want to know why? The war on masculinity.

          Tell me: In a world that doesn’t want to make room for balls, how will it possibly make room for guns?

          I rest my case.

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          The war on masculinity is a subset of the war on the family.

        3. avatar Mina says:

          Sorry William, that’s backwards. The war on the family is a subset of the war on masculinity.

          First you convince everyone that a man doesn’t need to be a man. Reject the patriarchy. Reject balls. Then women find they need a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Then the family goes down the drain.

          It all starts with the MEN. They must be eliminated.

        4. avatar William Burke says:

          Listen to me: the framework is SET. Now which is the larger set, family members or males?

          Males are a subset of the larger group. I feel like I’m talking to my third-grade grandson.

          Listen to what people are actually SAYING, before you criticize the statements.

        5. avatar rlc2 says:

          Mina, a very good point and valid comparison in some ways- understanding the female mind is in someways like understanding the progressive-leftist philosophy and more to the point- the way of operating- “the crab pot”.

          Lots of insights at that link to digest. I’ve bookmarked it and will read more.
          I’d reccomend it to a lot of young guys who are baffled and worse giving up. The young women of this generation in urban and suburban areas have really been filled with a lot of nonsense starting now as early as elementary school, and it will take a strong man, intellectually, morally, and emotionally, to help them find their way back. I dont mean that as anti-feminist- just a humanist sad at how messed up things have gotten, in well-intentioned ideas of equality of outcomes, vs equality of opportunity, just to name one unintended consequence. It will be a couple more generations before all the damage is understood, and overcome, and in the meantime, it helps to have alternative explanations to the pap and propaganda guys get at school and work, in this pc world.

        6. avatar Mina says:

          William: I will chalk it down to how we’re looking at it. I see the war on masculinity as being the root cause of many things. But I agree part of the reason it is done is to destroy the family. The cause is the demonizing of masculinity though, that is the root.

          Masculinity prevents the socialist takeover because men with balls won’t allow it to happen. Socialists and communists only care about intact families because intact families make men care, make men strong and make men very protective, aggressive and combative. Men with strong families are masculine. That is a huge problem for socialists who desire vast herds of sheep, not sheepdogs who get in between them and the sheep.

          Considering the amount of studying I have done on this issue and the volumes I have written, I have been active in whittling down the chaff around gun control and Liberalism and the rotting of our culture to this main theory over the past couple of years. I think I am pretty on target, which means that from my perspective you must be off target 🙂

          Think what you want, it’s fine as we’ll eventualy end up in the same place anyway which is good. Meanwhile I spend a lot of time fighting for men’s right to be men as I feel its the key to righting our sinking ship. I certainly hope you’ll support me in that endeavor.

        7. avatar William Burke says:

          Yeah, I’ve moved on, also!

        8. avatar Mina says:

          rlc2: think on this: feminist’s main goal is to emasculate all men.

          Still feel bad about apologizing for being “anti feminist” in your post?

          Don’t be. I hate feminists. I want them wiped off the face of the earth. All of them. And their smug smiles too.

  15. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    As always the article is spot-on, but I did find one correction:

    …but it gave Michael Bloomberg’s Shannon Watts, Moms Demand Action’s telegenic mouthpiece…

    She isn’t that telegenic to be honest, her visage reflects her opinion: there is just something off about it.

    (sorry to resort to the ad hominem, couldn’t help it)

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Well, she’s telegenic compared to Mikey Bloomberg, Chuckie Schumer or Di-Fi.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Yeah, a cockroach is easier on the eyes than a tick, I suppose, when you set aside societal bias.

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Seems pretty plain to me. That is until I hear her talk or read her words, then she drops to a zero out of ten, and only because negative numbers aren’t allowed.

      Can’t figure out what Dirk sees in her.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        It’s a put-on, Steve.

    3. avatar John E> says:

      her affect is flat and her eyes…they are dead

  16. avatar neiowa says:

    If Loesch is a paid “shill” does that make Shannon the paid shrill?

    1. avatar the ruester says:


  17. avatar Phil says:

    The View is obviously a women’s program, made up of (liberal) women, by women, for women who stay home. So imagine Dana Loesch getting a chance to look into those vacant stares and remind ALL the mothers out there of the home invasion scenario. Then to ask them to hide in the closet (at best) for >5 minutes until the police show up (assuming the call goes out) and save them all.

    OR, she could point out that each mother has the duty to protect her child with ANY tool, the most effective being most of the firearm options out there, unrestricted.

    AND she could remind them that if enough of these stay-at-home moms were armed, what are the odds home invasions would decrease? Then run the same scenario in the Wal-Mart parking lot.

    I just don’t get why women aren’t at the front of the pro-gun group. They all turn their heads at rapists and killers talking about how aweful it is and how we should move on as a society. But they demonize the very tools that would prevent such horrors. I love knowing my wife has plenty of self-defense options, at any given place in our house or vehicles.

    Disarmament only affects the weak. Evil people exist and they don’t need a gun to kill or worse. Guns level the playing field. Unless every good person out there spends their weekends in MMA classes, they are all sheep, waiting to be devoured by the wolves. We are all the descendants of those that were strong enough to fight or smart enough to arm. Why would that end now?

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      You would need more than weekends for MMA to be any kind of effective strategy in a bad scenario. I actually know this from experience you don’t want to bet your life on your ability to execute flawless grappling and striking techniques in a street fight, no matter how well trained you are. Criminals don’t follow the rules and all that. Mike Tyson probably wouldn’t want to walk down the street in his own home town without a gun, even in his prime.

      1. avatar JaxD says:

        You don’t know Tyson, he’s the one thing Chuck Norris fears.

        1. avatar Jeff says:

          yeah their chicken is pretty bad, but what about Mike Tyson?

      2. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

        Even if you spend 4 days a week training in a particularly effective martial art, criminals can employ tactics or numbers to nullify that skill. Even if they don’t, you’re only in your prime while you’re in your prime, make it into your 60’s and successfully defending yourself hand-to-hand may result in permanent injury to yourself. A firearm is that one last step to shave the chances of not-surviving down one more hair.

        1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          4 on 1, hand to hand, is a no win situation, no matter how badass you are…

          Groups of people attack one on one in Bruce Lee movies, but in the real world, they just all jump on you at once, get you to the ground and put the boots to you.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      “OR, she could point out that each mother has the duty to protect her child with ANY tool, the most effective being most of the firearm options out there, unrestricted.”

      I’m not convinced this would have any efficacy; they have been told all their lives that, “he’ll just take it away and shoot YOU with it, dearie!” And they cannot imagine it happening any other way.

      1. avatar Chris_From_NY says:

        The “He’ll just take it away and shoot you with it” statement has always fallen flat for me. By the time a home-invasion attacker can grab your firearm, it should be empty and the attacker full.

        1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          Those are the words of someone who has never been in a real fight (of any kind) and watches too many movies.

        2. avatar Jeff says:

          Their assumption is predicated on the idea that you’ll freeze and do nothing. They fail to realize that most people who have armed themselves are by virtue taking an aggressive position on self-defense, and are not likely to hesitate to pull the trigger on an intruder.

    3. avatar Phil says:

      Firearms help level the playing field. Can’t believe y’all read all of my comment, thanks!

    4. avatar Ardent says:

      While good MMA be beneficial, few people have the time, money and athleticism to get beyond the rudiments of it and you’re actually learning things that could get you killed in a street fight, such as takedowns; you never want to be on the ground in a street fight, it’s where you get stomped by the other guys friend. There are other holes in it as well but I won’t make this a dissertation on why MMA isn’t a good self defense strategy. In the end only the gun makes sense as a self defense tool. It has the range, power and ease of use that nothing can compete with and since the other guy might have a gun you pretty much have to if you’re even going to stand a chance.

  18. avatar Patriot says:

    MDA = Fvcking @ssholes.

  19. avatar 5Spot says:

    Dana is extremely sharp and a great rags to riches story. She would destroy the entire View panel like she has already done on the communist news network and MS LSD.

    Hmm…now if she was only not married!

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      How dare you sully the reputation of LSD? LSD demands satisfaction!

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      They always are. The Universe hates us.

    3. avatar Jim R says:

      The good ones are always taken, aren’t they?

  20. Sounds like some of the comments made are LIBEL & SLANDER.

    Get them LAWYERS, guns and money!

  21. avatar NDS says:

    I’ve listened to Dana for years here in St. Louis… Bad call on MDA’s part going after her. List of women not to F with:

    Dana Loesch

    Anyone who gets Her Royal Highness Claire McCaskill all bent out of shape on a regular basis can handle amateurs like MDA all day.

  22. avatar William Burke says:

    Ms. Loesch needs to cry “RACISM!!! THEM!!!”. And so it BIG and so it NOW.

  23. avatar David says:

    Really, Shannon can’t stand it that Dana is much better looking than her!

  24. avatar Jim R says:

    A page right out of Alinsky’s handbook. All according to plan, my friends.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Yessirree. It’s too by-the-playbook to be happenstance. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, neighborhood organizes like a duck…

  25. avatar Fug says:

    I hate that show, but I just googled it to see what is up with the house wife indoctrination program lately and saw that good ole’ Rosie O’Donnell will be paying them a visit again on the seventh. I certainly hope Dana can give big bird something to squawk about on Friday.

  26. avatar cubby123 says:

    Im telling you , gunowners need to get active with NRA-ILA and sfa or these aholes will keep getting press.They need the 2nd Amendment rammed down their throats by the Supreme Court. Like Ilinoise .they need their mouths shut legally.

  27. avatar TheYetti says:

    My question how do we push to get her ON the show?

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Good question. I haven’t a clue.

      I’d actually WATCH that drivel, just to watch them squirm.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Tell that to ABC. Duh…

      2. avatar TheYetti says:

        Watched just for Dana.

    2. And other shows. Our voices need to be heard. We need to organize calling and emailing campaigns. We need to be the loud, but calm and persistent voice. We have to stop RE-acting to these things and start being PRO-active, on the offense, not defense. Organize a group calling/emailing campaign in your local area, with your local pro-rights group.

    3. avatar the ruester says:

      Reverse psychology. Get the NRA to protest the View, and pressure Dana not to go on. Howl on about liberal agendas, and have Fox news offer her more money. If they think having her on would actually stick it to us I’m sure she will be permanent in no time.

  28. avatar DerryM says:

    The Television Guide from Time Warner Cable lists Dana Loesch as a Guest co-host starting Monday, Feb.3, Sooo, I guess the best way to find out who won is to tune-in and see if Ms. Loesch is on the show, or not, tomorrow. I’ll have to DVR it, as I have to be somewhere in the AM, but it will be worth checking-out.
    If ABC caves to Watt’s histrionics, then, I guess we know who to aim our Tweets at subsequently.

  29. avatar DV says:

    “Gun control advocates like Watts hate free speech. Or, more specifically, any speech that doesn’t contribute to their cause. It’s the reason that every YouTube channel, Facebook page and other new media venue they operate either has comments disabled or is carefully monitored to make sure that only comments that fit their narrative make it through and are posted.”

    — says it all

  30. avatar Daily Beatings says:

    Guess what? Shannon forget to disable the like/dislike ratings on this page:

    Go have some fun!!!

    1. avatar NJDevils72 says:

      HA! Good thing I have six Gmail accounts

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      Are you sure you’re old enough to be here?

  31. avatar Hannibal says:

    If the View cared about children’s lives they wouldn’t put Jenny McCarthy and her anti-science tripe on there.

  32. avatar Hannibal says:

    They must be speaking a different language, because I can’t figure out “gun bully” any more than I can figure out “assault weapon”. Maybe they can define it for us? Is it a bully that happens to own guns? Cause I could get behind not liking them. Or is it just someone who owns a gun and actually speaks out about it?

    Can we start calling them twitter bullies?

  33. avatar Phoenix says:

    3.Claim her opposition is getting money from the big bad gun industry, no matter what the facts may be.

    Interesting claim considering her group is getting massive amounts of dollars from Bloomberg!

  34. avatar Anonymous says:

    Shannon watts has historically sought only to silence her opposition by force. She does not want her opposition to have a voice or even enter discussions/debates as proven by removal of opposing arguments on their facebook and twitter pages. Her goals and means of obtaining such are the opposite of what this nation has historically stood for. She thinks that removal of firearms from our society is a better means of being “civilized.” When in actuality, it only provides a means for the strong to dominate the weak:

  35. avatar Bill From Over The Hill says:

    The tactic of discrediting your opposition as a paid spokesman popped up in the comments section on one of the stories run by a local tv station. This station has been running a series of stories on NY State government including the “Safe” act. The story I’m referencing ( interviews firefighters from Webster NY who are opposed to the SAFE Act. In the comments section a user listed as Mom’s Demand Action – Western NY. Accuses the firefighters of getting equipment from the NRA.

    The fact that the commenter is most likely paid by MAIG is never mentioned.

  36. Our mistake (that we keep making) is framing Dana’s (and our own) position as “pro gun.” We should be stating it as “pro choice.” Those who control the language control the debate. Let’s start winning the debate by controlling the language. Currently, we are allowing the anti-rights, pro-criminal, pro-gun control fringe element to define the language, to define us. Smarten up, people.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Great idea, IMO!

  37. avatar Renegade Dave says:

    Can we stop calling it a “Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex”? It’s not exactly an accurate term. Sadly, I do not have a witty one to offer up to replace it. “Military Industrial Complex” at least makes sense, depending on who you ask it can be the military, the industrial suppliers who outfit the military and the private contractors who rebuild as the military destroys. Pick any combination of the above and you’re close to the mark. With the gun grabbers, there is nothing “industrial” about them, in fact I would bet a majority of grabbers are acolytes to the Church of Global Warming and to them the only job worth having (other than activist for a PAC) is a “green collar” job. Both are about control, ultimately. I recognize it’s a satire of the lefty conspiracy theorists of the 90’s-2000’s along the lines of “vast right wing conspiracy” I just hate to associate a positive and useful word like “industry” with worthless people who have never done anything useful with their lives.

    I personally just like the term “Should-er”, as these types of folks are always the ones who start conversations with “You know what we should do?” or “There should be a law..” or something along those lines.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Making sense is not the point. It’s fun, it’s a good description, and it’s accurate enough.

    2. avatar Thomas Paine says:

      Civilian Disarmament Advocacy Cabal?

    3. avatar Jus Bill says:

      I like “The Infringement Lobby” from long ago.

      1. avatar Renegade Dave says:

        I rather like that. While we’re at it lets call “MDA” for “PTA busybodies with not enough to do”.

  38. avatar CTsheepdog says:

    If you haven’t seen it yet, check out the video at GBTV of Dana visiting Ted Nugent at his Texas ranch. The opening scene is of the two of them out on one of his ranges both carrying evil black rifles which they promptly put to use. Dana is clearly no newb to working an AR platform as she puts rounds down range like a pro. As for
    Uncle Ted, let’s just say that his rifle has a 3-position fun switch and he flocks it to rock and roll for the cameras. I wonder if the View producers will show this vid during Dana’s appearance.

    Later in the episode, Dana’s teenaged son puts a hurting on some steel targets from an AR.

    Of, FWIW, her last name is pronounced “lash”, not “loesh” as I have been mispronouncing for some time.

  39. avatar Yoel Grauberg says:

    On the plus side, another anti gun pro heroin junkie liberal scumbag dropped like a sack of potatoes with a needle in his arm, Phillip Seymour Hoffman is now in libtard hell doing his voiceover narrations for Mayors Against Guns videos. Good riddance junkie scum, gotta love an anti gun NYC liberal junkie telling the rest of us whats good and whats bad for US.

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      I’m with you. It is not too soon to talk about how Hoffman funded the kind of violent criminals who are responsible for the vast majority of gun deaths. When that mall shooting happened the other week, the bodies were still warm when the harpies were unleashed on us. Hicks shooting tin cans out in the country cause spree killings, but hypocrite liberals who enable deadly drug violence are beyond reproach?

    2. avatar Thomas Paine says:

      Gee, now I don’t feel so bad that my first reaction when I heard of his passing was something other than remorse. It was only after that I found out that he left behind young kids that my sympathy gland squirted out a couple of drops of sympathy hormone. But even then it dissipated quickly when I asked myself how a father could be so fracked up to be a junkie when he had young kids for whom he was supposed to be responsible. Yes, it happens way to regularly, but still.

    3. avatar William Burke says:

      Where did you attend charm school?

  40. avatar TangledThorns says:

    Shannon Watts is pushing hard on this as she wrote a guest column for Mediaite. Looks like Bloomberg is making her work hard to earn that anti-gun paycheck.

    1. avatar orion says:

      The libs are getting butt hurt in the comments section.

      One of them just asked for the comments to be turned off….LOL

  41. avatar TheBear says:

    Hardcore Liberals hate Dana L. They call her the next Rush L, but they can’t call her an OFWG and when extremists can’t discredit based on appearance, they don’t know what to do.

  42. avatar Martin says:

    We all need to contact the very people MDA lights up. We need to shower them with numbers and let them know that we are proud that they are taking a stand in supporting defenseless women/Americans/Children and ensuring the public knows the truth. They need more support than they get beat up. Between GRAA, NRA, GOA, NAGR and every other pro-gun group out there, we should be able to do that!

  43. avatar USNvet says:

    When Walters DIES then possibly I may watch it

    Whoopy calls everyone a raciest once the talk about the savage in the oval office with his using drones to murder children in hopes of killing one possible terrorist

  44. avatar colby says:

    Currently I am a stay at home wannabe trophy husband (see: under employed). I can verify that Dana was on the show today and that there was no real discussion of guns or gun control.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      So a deal was struck? She can be on the show, but no gun talk? Why would she strike a deal like that?

  45. avatar Kevin says:

    I made a post on the Facebook page of moms demand action – MI in which I paraphrased a statement made in a recent NRA News video… something to the effect that our constitutional rights are not something we have to justify… that they are not something someone granted to us… we are born with them and don not need to prove we need them.

    I paraphrased my post so leave out all mention of guns or any specific part or amendment of the constitution. Within the hour my post had been removed and I was banned from their page.

    It seems that every state has a Facebook page for this group. I wonder how many I can post in before they all ban me.

  46. avatar tommyr says:

    I don’t watch that crap, who wants to sit around and watch of bunch of chickens cackeling?

  47. avatar Jus Bill says:

    “Gun control advocates like Watts hate free speech.”

    Not quite. I think it’s more like:
    “Gun control advocates like Watts hate unpaid speech.”
    It cuts into their revenue stream, doncha know.

    1. avatar DaveG says:

      …. And she (and Ladd at CSGV, et al) would be out of a job if we ever do manage to end the use of guns in crime.

  48. avatar 7.62x54r says:

    Re: The VIEW

    I’m retired so watched it for the first time. If Watts and her ilk really wanted to get rid of OFWGs, make them watch this drivel for a couple of days. Suicide rates would be incredible.

    1. avatar tommyr says:

      LOL! I retired last May myself and between that garbage and the so called “Judge” shows suicide rates should be much higher than they are.

  49. avatar Alpo says:

    DVRd it just to see if there’d be any gun talk. Dana didn’t say anything actually. She might as well not have been on.

  50. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Dirk needs to do a better job of controlling his women.

  51. avatar timothy wahl says:

    Shannon watts is nothing more than an attention whore…….

  52. avatar allen says:

    “Better to silence someone with whom you disagree than engaging in honest and open debate.”

    that to me upsets me the most with this gun control people. i am very open and ready to speak to debate it all they want but they do not want to speak or get upset when i start making a good point. yet i am ready and willing to listen to them all and what they have to say. i rather hear both sides than one in anything

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email