Previous Post
Next Post

Open Carry Advocate Tom Lambert (courtesy

The following is Open Carry Advocate Tom Lambert’s response to Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell’s Pro-Gun Control statement to the City Council, in which Hizzoner said that Lambert’s appearance in the Chamber made him “anxious and frightened.” . . .

Mayor Heartwell, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to some comments I heard you made earlier today in relation to gun related violence and open carriers. I feel your excessive use of distortions, duplicitous fallacies and ad hominem underscores the lack of strength in what you are attempting to convey.

I have been working for quite some time now to educate, not only those in this chamber, but also the people of Michigan. Much of my focus has been on the lack of the ability of police to protect everyone. As you adequately pointed out, harm can come to someone even with a watchful officer standing ready in this room. Of course, once we expand on that notion we are led down the frightful path of understanding what would happen if a potential victim had to wait even mere seconds, or God forbid, minutes longer for said assistance. So if calling 911 is okay for people out in the city, why is it not okay for this room?

Though I doubt you will admit it, you have already acknowledged the crime-deterring effects of not just guns, but carrying them openly. It is after all why the GRPD carries their guns openly and why you have an officer openly carrying his firearm at this very meeting, is it not? As they say, actions speak louder than words and nothing detracts more from your notion of too many guns than this officer sitting back there at your behest and thanks with yet another openly-carried firearm.

Furthermore, in your statements, you pointed to a number of shootings that have occurred so far this year. However, what you failed to mention is that nearly all of them occurred in a “Gun Free Zone” much like what you wish to turn these chambers into. You also failed to mention all the lives, or some of those lives, were saved by lawfully-armed responders. No one watches a leopard chase down a gazelle and denies that the gazelle has the right to defend itself, but you would seemingly deny that same right to other human beings. You seem to think that the way to stop the leopard is to the cut the horns off the gazelle – that by somehow making it easier for the predator, the predator will somehow go away. This is folly. When you make it easier for the predator, you get more predators, as your “Gun Free Zones” have clearly demonstrated over the past few decades.

On the other hand, we have a very clear inverse trend of the number of gun owners in this country and the number of violent firearm-related incidents. You pointed to the number of firearms in the county that has gone up almost double in the last 20 years while the number of violent firearms-related incidents has gone down by almost two-thirds over the same time: Extreme uptick, extreme down.

I have said many times that the facts do not concern you, and once again you have proven me right. In referencing a recent road rage incident in Ionia, you attributed it to “lax and irresponsible gun laws.” The truth, if you had bothered to pay attention, is that one man defended his family from someone who wrongfully had a CPL because a prosecutor did not charge him properly and the gun board let the man slide. Would you have preferred the defender leave his family to defend themselves?

When I sat in front of you in your office I specifically mentioned proper prosecution using the laws we already have, yet you ignored me. I reached out to you with something I thought we both could agree on and it became abundantly clear that it was not public interest that you were putting first and foremost.

My message is and has been one of education and understanding. Your message is and has been a message of confusion, fear and bigotry. I want more people to know the laws and understand them, where you want others to be confused about our laws and afraid of people such as me without first attempting to understand us. You tell me who the bully is there and where the righteousness lies. Next time Sam Jones Darling (an LGBT advocate who frequents commission meetings) is here, why don’t you ask him how righteous his detractors claim to be.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • A politician of any flavor turned out to be a lying sack of shit; again, still?

      Fixed that for you. Don’t let your own prejudices keep you from discriminating equally against the morons (left and right) who somehow keep getting elected nationwide.

      • Ah, you presume too much. This is one politician which I have identified accurately. My comment was confined to the actual topic. It is your (false) presumption that I was coloring outisde the lines.

        But, since you brought it up: I hate all politicians. I hate Democrats slightly more than the rest. I abhor the idea of government of any kind at all. The mere establishment of a government is a declartaion of genocidal intent. Are we clear?

        • I’d argue that I was generalizing rather than presuming (i.e. many gun owners are conservative, and some conservatives seem to enjoy bashing the left just for the heck of it), but sometimes accidents happen on the internet when we aren’t intimately familiar with everyone else’s background. My apologies.

          Mostly I thought it was an appropriate, amusing, and accurate remark, so’s I posted it up. I digress, however, and agree that we are now “clear” (for the purposes of our conversation – please leave BART out of this for everyone’s safety, though).

          I’m an equal opportunity hater when it comes to politicians – get elected, say/do something stupid and crash and burn, and I’ll clap my hands and giggle like a schoolgirl over popcorn if I catch it on the nightly news that I don’t watch anyway.

          Sounds like you and me need to get rich, go to space, hollow out an asteroid, tell everyone else to f— off and start an anarchist collective. Except I’ll probably move out to the next asteroid so that I can collect taxes for bigger guns to take over your asteroid, since I liked it (and the precious metals also present) more than you did anyway.

          …Damn, I’m pretty sure I just proved your govt = path to genocide hypothesis rather by accident …

        • @Dustin Eward
          So if you took the time to point out that someone you disagreed with was black, or gay, or handicapped, etc, it would be merely in the interests of extreme accuracy?

          That argument just doesn’t fly any more. At least have the integrity of your prejudices.

        • I don’t hate government or politicians. I hate representatives and political parties moving beyond their charge. I hate LEO’s interfering with citizens freedom of movement, recent example is the Maryland trooper pulling a FL driver over, specifically searching for a gun which the driver knowing the law, locked it in his home safe. I hate government employees circumventing laws, gathering information to used against citizens.

          Above all I hate elected representatives who do bidding of their party punishing the half who didn’t vote for them.

          And the list continues.

      • Most of the GOP candidates haven’t tried to take away more of our gun rights while lying about the facts and claiming that gun owners want more children to be murdered. I find Dustin’s comment amply justified by America’s political history for the last few decades.

        • True, but most (GOP or Dems) politicians have been excited to amplify our government’s ability to track, listen in on, or otherwise surveil the citizens since before Bush Jr. signed the Patriot Act.

          Without the Patriot Act and various NDAA’s authorizing the creation and ballooning of the DHS and intelligence community overall, I’d argue it fairly unlikely that the Floridian road-tripper would have problems at all.

          I seriously doubt it’s the left or the right alone that would like a gun-free cameras-everywhere (wait, they slipped that last one by us already) government dependent and totalitarian state, because the major political parties would theoretically stand to lose from that proposition.

          As soon as you add the economic elite (yes, that tiresome 0.1%, and no, probably nobody on this site is in that group) that control both parties and much of the economy into the equation, suddenly constantly watching the Everyman who doesn’t have (read as: isn’t supposed to have) firearms and forcing as many as possible of these Everymen (everywomen?) to live on the government dole makes a lot more sense.

          Tl;dr – (too long, didn’t read):

          If you’re comfortable blaming one party or the other for the confused mess that ‘Merica is in today, you’re not looking far enough up the food chain.

      • All politicians are board towards statism. They are the government, so they believe government is the proper Avenue for solving problems. If they didn’t, they would not have run for a government office.

        If they believe government is the proper answer then alternatives must be wrong.

        If they truly believe government is the proper solution when lives are at stake then minor sins of dishonesty are acceptable for the greater moral outcome.

        The problem is the human mind’s ability to deceive itself into ignoring the possibility that it is wrong.

        • }}}} If they didn’t, they would not have run for a government office.

          I do not agree this is universally true, but it is, agreed, true for all too many, no matter what letter follows their names. Unless you’re prepared to go into open revolt, you may seek office to try and block the actions of the statists.

  1. This dude destroyed this anti gun mayor. any one who reads this and does not question the antis is living in fantasy land

        • Yep. Gun Owners of America has been very strong in educating their membership about this problem and in fighting it on Capitol Hill. (For those not yet members, I highly recommend joining:

      • }}} Unfortunately, fantasy land apparently has an open immigration policy and a lot of social assistance programs.

        LOL… Nice.

    • Excellent times infinity. Mr. Lambert, please be our spokesman. I personally would like to see you go one on one with Ms. Watts. (Dirk, get your mind out of the gutter). I want to see a debate. Televised. Nationally.

      THAT is the way we need to fight the mad mothers and illegal mayors.

      • I, for one, would want to watch Dirk and Shannon Watts in a one-on-one. On national television. Just for the fun factor.


        • }}} I, for one, would want to watch Dirk and Shannon Watts in a one-on-one. On national television. Just for the fun factor.

          Put them on opposite sides of WWE Smackdown, and I’d PPV that. 😀

  2. Since he is telling people to call the police on law abiding citizens, wouldn’t it only be fair if a bunch of law abiding citizens were to spam the hell out of his e-mail box with multiple duplicates of this statement? Like, multiple thousands of duplicates of this statement that just never stop coming for days? If nothing else, it would force him to finally acknowledge this guy publicly.

    [email protected]

    • Careful, encouraging hundreds or thousands of messages per individual might be close to inciting terrorism these days (if how Anonymous is treated for hacktivism these days is any indication) …

      I’d say seven to ten copies each ought to do it, spread over an equal number of days. Or hours. Or minutes.

      Brb mischief activism for a (Constitutional) cause.

      • “Careful, encouraging hundreds or thousands of messages per individual might be close to inciting terrorism these days…”

        You know, your statement got me thinking; how are his statements not the equivalent of “yelling fire in a crowded theater?” Wasn’t the idea of that statement you can’t incite panic amongst a crowd? Wouldn’t all of his potential informants be doing just that?

        • They’re the politically correct informants, and we’re not.

          Until we’re louder and have more votes (ideally politely) than they are, in which case they’re in the wrong.

          Modern media-influenced representative democracy is just so gosh darn complicated!

  3. I love it! Mr. Lambert used a play right out of my playbook to great effect: all you have to do is listen to gun grabbers and then simply apply their statements against them … exactly as Mr. Lambert has done.

    This is the beauty of having both facts and logic on our side: all we have to do is give gun grabbers enough rope and they will proverbially hang themselves.

    It also shows how the gun grabbers are desperately playing their last cards.

  4. Good for him, eloquently said. I particularly enjoyed his closing because it frames gun laws in the proper terms; civil rights. We seem to be in a mindset as a country that, “I believe this is the way it should be, and I have a right to impose that belief on everyone else.” It’s wrong, it’s always been wrong, and the founders of this nation were smart enough to recognize that and specifically form the Constitution to emphasize individuals’ rights, not society’s rights. When you start thinking in terms of “society’s” rights, you give up the very thing that makes America unique; the freedom to live your own life.

  5. Unfortunatly, thats like trying to educate the clowns head at the drive in. He needs to keep up the good work he is doing elsewhere, Randy

  6. As multiculturalism spreads you will hear more and more talk like this from politicians at all levels. It will win elections as demographics change. Your Constitution will then be nullified by popular vote and said to be the outdated ideals of former slave owners and sexist bigots. Then revolution. This reality is rushing towards us at record speed. No one will talk about it though for fear of being called a name.

  7. Time to work against his (the mayor) getting reelected, within the boundaries of the law. BTW, has anyone checked to see if this paranoid fear-mongering mayor is a member of MAIG (Ya know: Mayors Against all Non-Government Owned and Operated Guns?)

  8. I’ll say it again.
    The anti’s are running out if ideas. When it’s so bad that people are PUBLICLY OWNING these guys at their own city meetings, it gives me hope.
    Their arsenal of strategies is like a broken record. They use the same tactics OVER AND OVER AND OVER. The media is actually playing right into our hands as the young people of my generation are starting to see a pattern. Even the hardened anti’s are getting sweaty palms at this point.
    Once the wheel starts turning, it can’t be stopped. Onwards, ladies and gentlemen.

  9. I do have to question his remark about the improperly charged man being let slide by a CPL board. In a constitutional society such constructs are irrelevant. A free man needs no permission to be armed.

  10. I’m starting to believe that gun control advocates secretly want the expansion of “Gun-free zones” for the fact that more armed conflicts will occur in these locations, making it appear as if guns “anywhere” are bad, because all they do is support criminals.

    The contra-indicative facts of firearms preventing or stopping crimes will never be acknowledged by them.

  11. Was this delivered verbally (in session) or as a letter? I really hope he had a chance to say these words to the mayor’s face and watch the little sissy squirm.

  12. Was this response delivered in person? or was this simply a posted message somewhere? i sincerely hope the gentleman who wrote this went before the city council and spoke these words to the Mayor in person, with the city council and other residents looking on.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here