Previous Post
Next Post

“Planned Parenthood shooter Robert Dear was inspired by previous abortion clinic attackers and the promise of being met at the gates of heaven by aborted fetuses who would thank him,” reports. “Dear, who is charged with 179 criminal counts . . . was particularly incensed over allegations that Planned Parenthood clinics across the country were supposedly selling ‘baby parts’ —claims that circulated after anti-abortion activists released heavily edited videos last year, which became a campaign talking point for Republican presidential candidates.” Yeah, I blame the Republicans. And SKS . . .

Along with the three people killed in the November attack, Dear also injured nine people using, among other weapons, four Soviet-style SKS semi-automatic rifles, according to court documents. Police also found a shotgun, a rifle, and two handguns in his truck. From within the building, Dear also shot at propane tanks in the parking lot, hoping they would explode, the documents reveal. Before the standoff with police even began, Dear approached a woman outside the clinic and told her, “You shouldn’t have come here today,” before shooting her multiple times in the right arm, according to the court documents.

Well, Dear wasn’t lying — about that anyway. Gun control advocates are sure to seize on Dear’s “arsenal” while the real question is whether or not the court rule he mentally competent to stand trial. We are talking about a man who wore a ballistic vest made of silver coins and duct tape. I wonder if here had been a missed opportunity to intercept Dear before the shooting.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I had to smile at the phrase “blame … SKS”.

    It’s not about blaming Norinco, Tula, or Izhmash.

    Blame SKS!

  2. Dude;s got crazy eyes. Everybody that knew him was expecting something like this sooner or later. I’m willing to bet that any family members he had are sorry for the reason but are glad he’s in jail. Now they don’t have to be afraid of him.

  3. “the promise of being met at the gates of heaven by aborted fetuses who would thank him,”

    Sounds sort of like the same philosophy a Muslim terrorist would have, like the 72 virgins thing. This guy is a terrorist, plain and simple. Someone who murders for a cause and expects a reward in the hereafter.

    • This f*cking dirtbag was looking to murder people he specifically thought needed to be punished. He didn’t indiscriminately maim and kill random people in order to send a message to the masses…

      I think you are in the wrong place, son, this is not the forum to place unwarranted guilt….

      <—- Wonkette is that way

      • Obviously the man is an evil deranged murderer, and should be executed. I guess you could say however that the motive for his crime was “vigilantism combined with rebellion and insurrection” rather than “terrorism”.

      • Mussies think we are the specific group to be punished, their “terrorist” attacks are targeted at us, the western, relatively free society.

        And there may as well be a message this shooter wants to send, yknow, given the predictable mass publicity and a perceived condemnation against “pro-choice”.

        “Terrorism” in itself is an undefined term, or even a made-up term just to start the war on liberty. Not much different from your ordinary variety of mass murder

        • Terrorism is quite well-defined. I remember it from when I was in the USMC long before W’s “tuuuuurrrrrrism”.

      • So . . . what? You’re saying he was justified?

        The Muslims think the people they are killing deserve it just because their victims don’t believe the same things they do. Please explain how this guy was any different. He killed those people because they didn’t believe the same things he did.

        If you can’t see that, then I think YOU’RE in the wrong place. He was a scum murderer of innocent people and if you can’t see that . . then you’re part of the problem,

        • No, they’re far from the same thing….

          This guy is a batshit crazy murderer. Islamo-terrorists are an entirely different critter. They’re also batshit crazy but their end goal is genocide, not homicide. Let’s not give this dude any undeserved credit; he’s degrees less scary than a loosely organized army of people willing to wipe out the entire Western hemisphere.

          PS – Murder isn’t justifiable, otherwise it wouldn’t be murder

          • Trust me, my friend. I’ve worked in the Mideast, Asia and Africa since 2004. There is no difference between these people. They are all batshit crazy.

            Insane murder is the same no matter what the motivation. Nazis, Muslims, or fruitcakes like this guy . . it’s all the same thing. Kill anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

    • They are really met by 72 Virginians, starting with George Washington. Talk about a buzz kill!

    • So let’s name the organisation/religious group/head of State that condones this murder and go after them. Name names. Go ahead. Give it a try. If you can find a conspirator, I’m with you.

  4. being met at the gates of heaven by aborted fetuses

    Well, there’s some nightmare fuel for you.

  5. I think that the State of Colorado owes that poor Dear a short drop followed by an anonymous burial. Then he can go meet any fetus he wants.

  6. I remember when this incident happened, there were people reflexively claiming that the motivation was anti-abortion beliefs. (BTW, I was maybe a mile away from it when the situation ended).

    Correctly, people pointed out there was no evidence of such a thing, as yet (other than the fact that it was an abortion clinic that got shot up, which was deemed insufficient).

    However, if memory serves, some went further than that and simply asserted that there being no evidence as yet, meant it was not possible. Surely it would turn out to be another leftist nutter.

    It certainly did turn out, in the fullness of time (i.e., within just a few hours), that it was indeed an anti-abortion nutjob. So, in addition to not jumping to conclusions, it’s important to remember that not all the nutters are on the “other” side when events like this happen, and it’s ALSO wrong to simply dismiss the possibility (as impossible) before knowing all the facts, too.

  7. All them firearms and thats the best he could do? Sorry about the deaths, Wonder how he got out of that standoff before killing himself or becoming Police brand swiss cheese

        • Since Wendy Davis was so hot on making the world safe for the Kermit Gosnells, I always thought her campaign should have made up tiny pink sneakers like her famous pair, and sell them on keychains at her campaign events. With a card noting that they would just about fit those tiny feet Gosnell was keeping. I mean, what better way to encapsulate her objective?

        • If all abortion doctors are like Kermit Gosnell, then all gun owners are like Dear.

          Yay, blanket statements are fun!

        • Big difference IH. The vast majority of gun owners never take a human life. The only difference between Gosnell and the rest of the abortionists is the age of the victims.

        • You mean the vast majority of gun owners follow the laws and regulations pertaining to guns? Hm, perhaps the vast majority of abortion providers follow the laws and regulations pertaining to abortions? No, that couldn’t be right, could it, Mel?

        • And just because you believe something is immoral doesn’t mean it should be unlawful. Like, gun ownership?

        • There’s no false equivalence. It’s really simple: People think owning a gun is immoral and therefore should be illegal.

  8. Hmmm.

    Lemme see if I got that right –

    A nut-job with a gun goes to an abortion clinic, and then in the name of stopping the killing, starts killing people himself.

    I’m just not seeing the logic there…

    • I think you need to reset your logic button since the very premise of self defense is “start killing to stop killing”

      • You don’t start shit in self defense. It wouldn’t be self defense if you started it. What this guy did was kill people, murder them, while they were engaged in a legal activity.

        Sorta like the scum bag that swatted that bb gun carrying fellow in the wal mart that got him killed by the cops.

        • Even if I were to accept that premise for the sake of argument (and I don’t accept it in fact), self defense cannot be claimed here. They weren’t trying to abort Dear. He also can’t claim he was acting to defend someone else as the people he shot weren’t performing an abortion at the time. So…at best, he’s engaged in vigilante “after the fact” justice.

          And that’s as far as you can go IF you accept that an abortion is a murder. So, you’re Stoopid even within your own frame of reference… much less mine, where I don’t think an abortion is a murder.

    • Geoff PR,

      Okay, I’ll be “that guy”.

      First of all, I do NOT condone the execution of random people.

      Now that I have that out of the way, consider the following setting in 1941:
      (a) German government declared that Jews were NOT people and were inhibiting the full potential of the German populace … and therefore authorized the mass execution of Jews.
      (b) German populace was either ambivalent or supported that stance.

      Since the mass execution of Jews was “legal” (had government’s blessing) and a large chunk of the populace did not oppose it (had the populace’s blessing), it was good and right, correct?

      Had a German citizen found the mass execution of Jews to be wrong and morally repugnant, and proceeded to kill a German worker who was pulling the lever at a gas chamber, would that German citizen be a nutjob and a murderer for killing the person pulling the lever at the gas chamber?

      The above directly parallels abortion in our nation. The United States government has declared that unborn babies are not people and inhibit the full potential of the women who carry them … and therefore authorizes the mass execution of unborn babies. And a large chunk of the United States populace is either ambivalent about this or supports it. So this makes it right and good to kill unborn babies, correct?

      If someone believes that killing innocent human life is wrong — regardless of the victim’s age, development, self-sufficiency, sentience, environment, or any other arbitrary factor … and whether or not the Almighty State and a large chunk of the populace recognizes it — then that someone would rationally determine that abortion workers are quite literally mass murderers. And if someone believes that use of deadly force to defend innocent life is justified, then that someone would be justified to use deadly force to prevent the murder of innocent life … and they themselves would be a defender, not a murderer. I am not condoning this nor suggesting that anyone go out and kill abortion workers. I am simply describing how such actions do not fall under the category of “nutjob”.

      Final thought:
      There has been talk (at least from an “ethics” perspective) in our nation about “post-birth abortion”. If government legalized post-birth abortion and a large chunk of the populace is ambivalent or even supports it, does that make it right? If post-birth abortion clinics opened and began killing thousands of infants, would we consider someone a “nutjob” if they killed the post-birth abortion workers in a desperate attempt to stop those workers from killing thousands of infants?

      • Legality has nothing to do with morality. A well defined legal code is the hallmark of an immoral society. (I’m quoting someone else that said something probably similar there.)

        Even if you perform a moral, but illegal act, you may still rightly suffer the consequences of that illegal act.

        • Even if you perform a moral, but “illegal” act, you may still rightly suffer the consequences of that “illegal” act.

          I agree with the modified statement above. I do not agree that a person “rightly” suffers imprisonment for defending human life … any more so than the people who are in prison for failing to observe their “duty to retreat” are “rightly” in prison for defending their lives.

          This is the problem with a society without God: there is no absolute right nor wrong. What is “right” today could be “wrong” tomorrow (or vice versa) at the whims of the majority or the ruling class. Without God’s objective and timeless standards, we have the situation in the United States today where, according to government, an unborn baby is a “lump of cells”, “tumor”, “parasite”, or a “fetus”; is not a human life; and is only valuable if the mother carrying the unborn baby says so. Really bad things happen when a society claims to have the authority to define who is and who is not a human life and therefore expendable. But don’t take my word for it … look at World History.

        • uncommon_sense: It is exactly that moral certainty you speak of that compels one to act justly, even in the case of illegality, and then to submit himself to the laws he is bound by. Christ himself was our perfect example of this.

      • >> If someone believes that killing innocent human life is wrong — regardless of the victim’s age, development, self-sufficiency, sentience, environment, or any other arbitrary factor … and whether or not the Almighty State and a large chunk of the populace recognizes it — then that someone would rationally determine that abortion workers are quite literally mass murderers. And if someone believes that use of deadly force to defend innocent life is justified, then that someone would be justified to use deadly force to prevent the murder of innocent life … and they themselves would be a defender, not a murderer. … I am simply describing how such actions do not fall under the category of “nutjob”.

        If someone believes in chemtrails, and further believes that they are detrimental to the health of millions of people, then that someone would rationally determine that agricultural pilots are quite literally mass murderers – so they would be justified (in their mind) to use deadly force to stop that… and therefore not a nutjob?

        • int19h,

          If someone had a chemical sample of a “chemtrail”, a laboratory confirmed that the sample was nerve gas, the pilots of those aircraft disseminating the “chemtrail” were fully aware of the fact that they were spraying nerve gas on the masses, and that concerned person knew for certain that a given aircraft was loaded with said nerve gas, then yes … that someone would rationally be justified to use deadly force to stop the pilots from taking off and knowingly spraying nerve gas on the masses.

          In the abortion case there is no doubt that an unborn baby is a human being. And there is no doubt that abortion clinicians who slice and dice unborn babies and remove them from the womb are killing those unborn babies.

          The criteria is always the same: if a “reasonable person” would agree that an instigator has the ability to kill someone, the intention to kill someone, and the killing is imminent, then the defender is justified to use deadly force to stop the murder. The age of the victim and murder weapon are irrelevant.

          Having said all that, you could argue that an abortion worker outside of an abortion clinic does not pose an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm to unborn babies … just as you could argue that a pedophile who has knowingly raped hundreds of children and who is on his way into an isolated building filled with children and no adults does not pose an imminent threat of rape. That is an entirely different kettle of fish.

          • >> In the abortion case there is no doubt that an unborn baby is a human being.

            Indeed. But there is significant doubt that abortion constitutes murder.

        • int19h,

          “But there is significant doubt that abortion constitutes murder.”

          Not sure I agree with that statement … although I don’t think it is an unreasonable claim.

          • You can disagree on whether abortion is a murder or not. But it’s undeniably true that tens of millions of people in US, and billions worldwide, don’t believe that it is murder – which is what my statement was about.

            And from the perspective of those people, those who believe that abortion is murder, and are willing to prevent said murder by lethal force, and/or punish people for it through violence, are definitely nuts.

  9. Of course they will use this to demonize gun owners and Christians because as we all know that gun owners are nothing but sadistic killers. Sarc/

  10. Heavily edited video? So instead of releasing a full 2 hour video that the media would never even bother listening to, let alone report on, they cut it down to the 2 minutes of pertinent conversation and post the entire video online and Planned Parenthood’s only defense is to slam the video for being ‘heavily edited’. There’s a huge difference between ‘heavily edited’ and deceptively edited.

    • WHY When the totally honest and righteous film makers attempted to use the Court to inflict punishment on Planned Parenthood did that court pretty much apologize to planned parenthood and turn right around and charge and arrest the film makers??? I am not talking about a back east, no good, commie court full of Philadelphia lawyers. It was a “string em up, it will teach em a lesson” Deep in the hart of Texas court .
      The sort of court where everyone except the defendant and his consul are wearing sidearms. A real Texas court where showing proof you are a southern Baptist in good standing is a prerequisite to becoming a bailiff. The kind of court real Texians like myself trust, and love!! I am not being sarcastic. I would say Maybe the film makers were not so honest after all.

      • Methinks you have too much trust in the courts. Also, the courts don’t charge people with crimes, attorneys general do. Anyway, if you believe what you say you believe, go watch all of the videos in their entirety and make your own judgement. Otherwise you’re just swallowing the PP propaganda whole.

        Also, why did PP come out publicly that they weren’t going to do that anymore if they weren’t doing it in the first place?

      • You mean the court in Houston? Where the lead prosecutor is on the board of the local Planned Parenthood? Where the former mayor’s wife was president of the board of the local Planned Parenthood? You obviously don’t know beans about the Houston local government.

      • Better yet. Planned Parenthood murders unborn with 500 million tax payers dollars while contributing to democrats who want to remove the right of public lawful self defense with a gun.

    • The link to the “heavily edited” article was to The Atlantic, possibly more propagandist than NPR.

  11. Great, now there’s gonna be a run on SKS’s and a push to ban them…. I wonder if his were modified with super scary Tapco/Archangel stocks and removable 30rd mags. :rolleyes:

    I’m glad I picked up a couple decent Norincos when they were still cheap.

  12. I think they should give him a lab coat and stethoscope, after all he was simply removing some unwanted tissue, merely clusters of cells. Actual humans would not murder babies, so if there were justice in the world, a few adult abortions might result in a stay at the local rubber room hotel. Y’all talk amongst yourselves.

    • Unless I’m missing your sarcasm here, and I apologize if I am, but in other words, you feel he was justified to kill defenseless victims? Hmmmm . . . sounds sort of like the same thing he claimed to be fighting against.

      • Mik You sure seem to have a lot invested in this PROAbortion BS. Are you part of the infanticide industry?

        • Not at all, I’m just not PRO-MURDER. How about you?

          And before you start in on how abortion is murder, do you actually think it’s ok for someone to walk into a building or wait in a parking lot and just start shooting people? If you do, then you are nothing more than a sociopath.

    • I’m with you Don. Murder babies and joke about it. I’m not excusing this deranged dude. No innocent adults in a baby murder mill.

      • Murder babies and joke about it.

        No babies were killed, but some number of adults were.

        Oh, you mean those fetuses and embryos? Those weren’t babies either.

        • If a fetus isn’t human, then I hope you can explain to me how Planned Parenthood harvests functional human organs from the ones they abort.

        • Gee Steve we all(except you???) started LIFE as a collection of cells,embryo’s and fetuses. When did YOU become human??? Or did you? Anti-human BIGOT I see…murder those cells.

        • “Oh, you mean those fetuses and embryos? Those weren’t babies either.”

          Semantic games.

          Whether you call the ‘mass of cells’ a fetus, embryo or baby doesn’t matter.

          What matters is the mass of cells has uniquely identifiable DNA that is demonstrably human. That is, from the moment of conception, that zygote is alive (though dependent, such as “babies” well past their first year after birth) as a unique organism.

          So, let’s stop playing semantic games. Abortion is murder, it’s just that the “pro choice” crowd is comfortable with that particular act of murder. This is no different, logically, than the Fudds that are okay with SOME guns but not others, so long as the bright line defining ‘acceptable’ agrees with THEIR position.

          To be self consistent, admit it is murder of a human being and formulate your argument as it being ethically and morally acceptable murder.

          • What matters is whether it’s a person. A lump of cells not possessing a brain, and therefore not self-aware, is most definitely not a person. And I couldn’t care less about humans that are not persons. There’s nothing magical about human DNA that entitles its bearer to certain rights, at least to those of us who don’t believe in that whole notion that humans are special because they were created so by God thing. It’s personhood that makes one entitled to natural rights of a person, regardless of DNA.

        • Semantic games indeed.

          Go back, all of you and read what I wrote.

          I did NOT claim that fetuses and embryos weren’t human organisms, I claimed they weren’t babies.

          The word “human” did not appear at all in my post. Why the fuck did you insert it into what you thought you were reading?

          Yet every single one of you replied as if I had.

          A “baby” is a specific developmental stage. Embryos and fetuses are *different* developmental stages than babies.

          The biological question of whether a fetus is human is clearly settled. It is. It’s also not a “baby.”

          Now the MORAL question of whether a pre-born human organism has legal rights is a *different* question, and you are all *assuming* an answer here. Which wouldn’t be so bad, except you insist on muddying the language, even in your head. Why is why you all had to pretend I had asserted embryos and fetuses weren’t human.

        • And once again the only thing I have in common with “people” like you Steve is we like guns. Pretty sure Hitler,Stalin and Mao were gun fans too. Curse away…and why do you get so excited?

        • SteveInCo,

          “Now the MORAL question of whether a pre-born human organism has legal rights is a *different* question …”

          The sad state of affairs is that so many people want to sit in judgement and declare which “human organisms” have legal rights and which do not. Nazi Germany declared that Jewish human organisms and certain German human organisms with handicaps had no legal rights. Japan declared that non-Japanese human organisms had no legal rights. The Mayans declared that certain human organisms (objects for human sacrifice) had no legal rights. Slave owners in the United States declared that African human organisms had no legal rights. In all of these cases, those societies rejected the inherent, universal, unalienable value and dignity of human life. And the consequences were predictable — unbelievable depravity and human suffering.

          Any and all claims as to which “human organisms” have a right to life are totally arbitrary … which means that our right to life is arbitrary in the eyes of people who make such claims. So much for our unalienable right to life.

        • If all “human organisms” have a “right to life” immediately from conception, then you’re going to have to set up a system for women to report in every time they have unprotected sex in order to test if they are pregnant. If they are pregnant, then they’ll need to be monitored 24/7 to ensure they do absolutely nothing that might jepardize the human organism in which they carry. If they have any discharge after having unprotected sex, it will need to be examined to determine if it was or was not fertilized. If it was fertilized, a full investigation will need to be launched to determine if the woman took an action, ingested any substances, or otherwise caused the “abortion”, intentionally or unintentionally. From there it’s only a matter of first degree murder or involuntary manslaughter.

        • Steve and ironhorse.
          It is amazing the verbal and logical gymnastics those who support abortion will go through to justify murder. A fetus can be saved by medical professionals now approaching 20 months. When did that blob of tissue suddenly become a baby? Go ahead and keep justifying murder. Just like this nut is a murderer so is every abortionist. That being said, society is filled with unjust laws, those who are Christian trust God’s justice.
          Ironhorse likes to trot out some ridiculous example of the totalitarian state his imaginary worldview creates. What is your point>? We who are against abortion don’t want to see abortion mills legal and protected. We would not pen up women or enforce your ridiculous laws. We simply believe that the most vulnerable and beautiful lives our those of mothers and children. Killing them for convenience is murder and a sin.
          I expect the bloody coat hanger response soon…. (another leftist myth.)

        • Ironhorse,

          Miscarriages are a natural and somewhat common event that can happen for any number of reasons beyond the mother’s control. If a baby dies in the womb, the standards for government investigation should be the same as any other death: if there is no obvious evidence of foul play, there should be no intrusive government investigation.

          More importantly, a miscarriage that in rare cases could be the result of foul play is one thing … medical clinics that routinely carve up, extract, and kill unborn humans beings is on a totally different level and should not exist. Their very existence declares that human life is not an inherent right, but subject to external factors. That position, in my world, is obscene.

          Final comment: I’ll agree to the intrusive 24/7 monitoring of women who have unprotected sex when you agree to the same of all parents who have minor children. After all, those parents could be mistreating their children at any time. Or, we could leave parents to be parents (no matter how old or developed their children are) and only investigate when EVIDENCE of foul play comes to light.

        • Right on Cue here comes the bloody coat hanger arguments. So people searching for abortions on the web is a sign of the apocalypse?
          Its pretty obvious (even if you don’t believe in God) that a new life is not supposed to be taken out of the womb by unnatural means. What you are defending is a lifestyle of convenience. I for one am willing to see a small rise in people taking risks like your article if the 1.1 million abortions last year were reduced to a couple thousand. Nice as well as though quoting the communist New York Times which quotes the complete leftist Guttmacher institute. Keep spinning your narrative.

      • “No innocent adults in a baby murder mill.”

        AND you own guns? Only a few loose screws away from joining him.

        • “Only a few loose screws away from joining him [Dear].”

          I could make the same assertion about people who:
          (a) declare that not all human life is worthy of life, and
          (b) condone the killing of human lives that are not “worthy”.

          As I stated in my earlier post, this mindset leads to the exploitation and death of hundreds of millions of people throughout history … like World War II Japanese who declared that it was perfectly okay to rape and torture Chinese women.

  13. You also blame “Samozaryadnyj Karabin sistemy Simonova 1945”????

    When Mentally ill people go unnoticed and untreated, it never ends well.
    It is sad Dear did not encounter anyone able to see how ill he was and find him help until after he killed people

    As far as abortion goes. Until men can become pregnant and carry a fetus to term, men have no right to tell women what they can or can not do regarding abortion!
    Men telling women anything about how to deal with being pregnant is as crazy as fish telling birds anything about flying!!!

    • So true. Men should be banned from telling their girlfriends to get an abortion or providing any opinion on the matter at all. Actually, they should be required to pay 18 years of child support, whether or not she gets an abortion. Little known fact that most abortions take place due to pressure or lack of support from the would-be father.

    • ” Until men can become pregnant and carry a fetus to term, men have no right to tell women what they can or can not do regarding abortion!”

      The very definition of illogical. There simply is no rational basis to make this claim.

      (1) You have no “right” to tell any man what he has a “right” to tell anyone else, including women on any subject whatsoever.

      A “man” will speak his mind. There is no “right” to do it or not to do it. Maybe this does not apply to feminist metrosexual “men,” but most men don’t sit around and wait for someone to give them the “okay” to state what they believe about something.

      (2) Men play a rather HUGE role in society at large and in families. Men speaking their minds on the subject of abortion is incredibly important to society at large and to individual families.

      (3) You don’t get to completely dismiss the opinions of roughly half the population just because you have some simplistic, utterly immature view of the world.

      As an individualist, I would concede that no individual man has a “right” to impose his individual will on an individual women in a specific case, but that’s a FAR, FAR cry from saying no man can/should say anything at all about an issue that effects women, children, men and society at large.

      This is is the kind of nonsense that spreads like a cancer in universities, and it’s just plain stupid. Please stop with slogan-esque, illogical pablum.

      • It all hangs on what “tell” means. Robby clearly meant it in the sense of “mandating” or “compelling.” In that sense he’d be right, and I think you even agreed with that in your last paragraph (though perhaps I misunderstood). Most of what you condemned was predicated on the assumption he was saying they had no right to an opinion. (Interestingly, you used the word “tell” in condemning people who tell others not to have an opinion.)

        I agree largely with the spirit of what you wrote here, but I think you are talking past each other due to different senses of the word “tell.”

  14. Let’s see. Killing people that murder babies is wrong?!? A group of people that is completely dependent on an adult do survive, a group of people created by that adults actions. A group of people that can’t defend themselves.

    Hmm, it seems to me that the baby killers are the ones that should be executed.

    • Depends on where you draw the line, yknow

      Where are the lines between an embryo, a fetus and a baby?

      The line after which you’d rather allow the society, which is supposed to serve individuals, to step into your reproduction?

      The line after which the societal benefit of having that human being exceeds your convenience of getting rid of it because it’s the wrong timing?

      The line between a machine and an organism?

      Aggravated assault and attempted murder?

      Living and dying?

      All depends on where you draw the line

      • I guess what I’m saying is that this guy is not the judge and jury of the universe. Where does it end if any group or individual somehow decide they are the righteous angels of justice for any given situation? No one has the right to walk into a room full of noncombatants and just start wasting them. Whether they are Muslims, supposed Christians, or atheists. Anyone who does so is a terrorist.

        I make my living fighting terrorists.

        Does this mean that the government can decide any one group needs to be eradicated and then act on that? It becomes a question of anyone setting themselves up as judge and jury. Does might make right? I don’t see it that way. That’s why I will never surrender to some group or government telling me they are right and everyone else is wrong.

        That’s what it is to be a Libertarian. Neither the government nor any group or individual has the right to tell people things like who they should marry or how they should live. I’ve spent years in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, the West Bank, Egypt, Somalia, Kenya and so on. There are groups there that try to tell everyone else how they should live.

        That only leads to the strong subjugating the weak. Sorry, I just can’t agree with that.

        • Did you perchance mean this reply to go somewhere else? It’s good, but would fit better in other places.

          • Thank you for the compliment, but not at all. Stoopid1 seems to think that he has the authority to pass judgment on people without knowing anything about them. He claims to be a Libertarian, but he advocates that he, or some group he approves of should have the right of deciding who lives and who dies. In that way, he is no better than the people he condemns for abortion. They decide who lives and who dies . . . how is he any different?

            I think it fits very well here. He, like so many . . like the Liberals, seem to think they are smarter and more righteous than everyone else and therefore should make the rules for the rest of us. That is not being a Libertarian, that is being a Fascist.

            Dear was nothing more nor less than an active shooter . . . and all that rates is a clean head shot.

        • “That only leads to the strong subjugating the weak. Sorry, I just can’t agree with that.”

          Abortion is exactly that. Thanks for agreeing with me, now go correct your end results.

          I am 100% libiterian, BTW.

        • Mikial,

          I believe life begins at conception.

          So, abortion is murder.

          Would you “pass judgement” on someone trying to murder your child? Or any child?

          Everyone should have a chance to live. And yes, I’ll “pass judgement” on anyone that commits murder.

          • I agree life begins at conception. What does that have to do with someone committing murders in the name of . . what? Life?

            Does that mean that anyone who disagrees with someone else is fair game for murder? Do you believe in anarchy? By your justification, then ethnic cleansing is acceptable because that other group . . whoever they are, doesn’t believe the same as you do.

            Here’s a novel thought . . how about people are free to live their lives as they feel is appropriate as long as they don’t infringe on others, and then they are accountable to God for their actions. Or had God come down and talked to you and given you the mission to be the angel of righteous retribution for the sins of others? If so, then I guess we have a very different understanding of who and what God is.

            You, Sir, are a self-righteous prig who are no different than Nazis or the KKK or any other hate filled group who feel they have a God-given right to pass judgement on others. Maybe you should actually read the New Testament so you would have some idea of what Christ actually taught. No, I don’t agree with abortion. but I also don’t agree with some fruit loop slaughtering people. If you do, then you should go and become a part of ISIS because you are closer to them than to Libertarians or the true spirit of America. I make my living teaching people how to defend themselves from people like you.

            Take that any way you want to.

        • Mik,

          That was pure awesome.

          I am not religous.

          Everything you are accusing me of, you are doing yourself….. Something about a pot and kettle.

          Oh, and thanks for the antiterrorist work.

          Not that I am defending the Islamic terrorists, but just for completeness on the logic, an Islamic terrorist would accuse you of exactly the same thing.

          Someone else here can state this better, but it all comes down to a persons belief code/morality. Humankind has always been willing to kill to defend their morality.

          • My friend, I am not your enemy and I don’t consider you mine.

            There are a lot of really messed up people in this world, and honestly, I don’t consider you one of them. We have some basic philosophical differences, but we are not enemies. I believe that you are a person who would stand side-by-side with me in the defense of our nation and way of life.

            If you are willing, let’s just leave this at that and recognize that warriors sometimes have differences but who will always fight for the man next to them.

        • Mikial,

          If you read your Bible, you will also know that God directs us to cherish and protect human life … which entails, among other things, looking out for the good of your neighbors and actively protecting widows and orphans. The moment that a pregnant woman decides to kill her unborn baby, that woman has relinquished her parental status, that baby is an orphan, and that baby deserves just as much protection as a baby that is 10 seconds out of the birth canal. From that perspective, I don’t see anything unGodly about desiring to protect the life of an unborn baby. (How exactly we go about protecting that life within God’s standards is a different question.)

          I appreciate and agree with your stance to be incredibly reluctant to kill anyone under any circumstances … as well as your stance to refrain from judging ourselves to be superior to others. In this case desiring to see an unborn baby survive its imminent demise is not judgmental … it is compassion of the highest form.

    • Killing people that murder babies is wrong?!?

      Show me ONE baby that was killed at this clinic.

      Two hints: 1) An embryo is NOT a baby. 2) A fetus is NOT a baby.

      • Again…if a fetus isn’t a baby that’s only because it hasn’t left the womb alive. Planned Parenthood harvests human organs from aborted fetuses. This proves that fetuses are human beings — not an undifferentiated clump of cells, but a growing, living human that absolutely will be a baby unless someone steps in and kills it.

        An aborted fetus is dead. Therefore abortion kills humans. Humans that aren’t yet self-aware and can’t live outside the womb, but humans nonetheless.

        So here’s the question: when is it okay for one human to end another human’s life? Is it ever okay?

      • An embryo is not a baby, a fetus is not a baby, a baby, is not a toddler, a toddler is not an adolescent, an adolescent is not a twenty-something,…middle-aged,…senior citizen. Ending a human life, at any stage, willfully and without provocation, is murder.

        • Well said.

          The abortion argument seems to have boiled down to which stage of human development is deemed the stage where value of life is placed.

          Unique DNA exists at the moment of conception. That cannot be denied or rationalized away with semantic terms.

          All this ’embryo is not a baby’ stuff is no different than saying a mother killing her 6 mo old is okay because, as you point out, “an infant is not a toddler.” Or, how about abusing a toddler is ok since it’s not an adult, independent person?

          From conception, it is “human.” The debate seems to be nothing more than “What humans are ok to kill on the basis of convenience.”

          • If you value life, defined as “unique DNA”, I sure hope you’re a vegan. I mean, it would still be horrible – think of all the poor, unique plants that you eat – but at least their DNA is simpler than what you’ll find in your average steak.

        • @JR

          I object to equating fetus->baby because it’s quite clearly an attempt to steal a concept.

          If it is indeed axiomatically obvious, as the “pro life” side maintains, that it shouldn’t matter whether it’s a fetus, embryo, baby, toddler, etc. and the pro life side should be willing to use the correct term. Instead, they play this bait and switch of calling fetuses and embryos “babies.” They’re trolling for an emotional response, one against infanticide, and trying to direct it against abortion, by mis-applying the word “baby.” Why do this? Because the real argument they want to make doesn’t seem to sway enough people, for some reason. Maybe it isn’t axiomatically obvious.

          You’re right. Properly framed, this IS entirely a question of whether there is, or is not, a developmental stage before *rights* are invested in the human organism. That’s a philosophical/ethical question, not a biological/scientific one, which won’t be settled by dishonestly misusing the name for one developmental stage on another. Unless emotional appeals are legitimate, but I am pretty sure you don’t believe that.

        • All right, Steve, now you’re making sense. When I responded to you earlier, I thought you were making a dishonest comparison — but we’re on the same page here, for the most part.

          As for appeals to emotion, emotion definitely is legitimate. An argument without an emotional component is ineffective. The problem with emotion as an argumentative tactic is that it’s specific to the individual, and that it is so often used to completely short-circuit all logic. People will shout “it’s a baby!” or “it’s only a fetus!” (or, getting back to guns, “for the children!”) in an attempt to trigger emotions that obscure the truth.

      • So why do people say to each other “how’s your baby?” Why don’t they say – “how’s your fetus?”

        I’ll tell you – because they know that a fetus becomes a baby and that a baby isn’t simply defined a baby when it gets pushed out. Why does the act of pushing out a baby change it from “fetus” to “baby?”

        • Steve in CO, why don’t you respond to this video? Please try and broaden yourself.

    • You could have called him that the day after the incident.

      It’s amazing how many commenters here are saying he was justified, by of course substituting the word “baby” for “fetus” or “embryo.”

      • It depends on which way you squint while reading the Bible. After all, Jesus did say that “not even one iota, nor one stroke of a letter, shall pass away from the law” – and the law in question did proscribe death penalty for quite a lot of things. Then there was the cleansing of the Temple, and something about “buy a sword”. Enough for a brave spirit to cobble something together.

        Anyway, a lot of people think it works out for them. Kataeb, say, or Lord’s Resistance Army, or the anti-Balakas.

        • He also answered what he meant by “law” when asked…so there’s that whole “New Covenant” thing.

      • Isn’t a Christian anyone who has accepted Jesus Christ as his lord and savior, and asked for his forgiveness?

        What does “acting like a Christian” mean? Apparently, every Christian–and every non Christian–sins, or we wouldn’t need to ask JC for forgiveness.

        I can’t see any rational reason to claim Dear wasn’t a Christian. He did great evil, to be sure, but every Christian, by their own lights, does evil. I’ll agree that he didn’t act as a Christian, or anyone for that matter, ought to act.

  15. Studies done on the people who committed terrorism in Europe and as recently as the Friday the 13th Paris attacks, the Charlie Hebdo attack and the Brussels air port bombing and subway bombing show they were not religious in the least. They were societal misfits, criminals, dope pushers, drunkards, drug takers, former jail birds, unemployed, uneducated, and looking for a cause to commit suicide over. In other words religion was not part of their life.

  16. Too bad there wasn’t an armed person in the clinic so that Dear could meet those aborted fetuses right away.

    • Agree 100%.

      Cowards like this guy prey on people where they don’t expect any resistance. I would have been happy to be that armed citizen.

    • According to the catholic religion, unbaptized babies go to a place called Limbo, they hang out there untill the second comming of christ, I think.

  17. The look on this dude’s face tells me he checked out of the Reality Hotel a LONG time ago.

  18. Ironic that the courts find a right to abortion hidden in the constitution, but at the same time can’t figure out the meaning of Shall Not Be Infringed.
    Both parties here could be charged with murder. The doctors that are killing babies however don’t have defense of others as an affirmative defense. Although our left wing courts shield those same doctors under an invented right to privacy that is found in the ‘shadows’ of the constitution.

    • The doctors that are killing babies however don’t have defense of others as an affirmative defense.

      Neither does Dear. Unless he shot them up while actually in the act. You don’t get to shoot a guy because you saw him commit a murder a while ago.

      That’s aside from the question of whether abortion is murder in the first place (and I note you’re using the dishonest tactic of calling preborns “babies” hoping to equate abortion to infanticide without having to actually justify the equation). Even if it is murder, Dear cannot claim defense of others.

    • Ironic that the courts find a right to abortion hidden in the constitution, but at the same time can’t figure out the meaning of Shall Not Be Infringed

      You’re on stronger ground here. Clearly judges can’t read “shall not be infringed” without inserting whatever qualifier they damn well feel like. However…the constitution is NOT a complete laundry list of specific rights. Amendment Ten explicitly states that there are other rights, not listed, and that the fact that they aren’t listed, doesn’t make them lesser rights. The constitution grants specific powers to the federal government, and all that’s necessary is to find that government doesn’t have a specific power. Judges don’t do this often enough, by the way, but the point is, it’s not wrong to find an unwritten right to exist. (Now if you want to argue about the specifics of this right, that’s one thing…but you can’t legitimately use “it’s not in the constitution” as an argument there.)

    • “Both parties here could be charged with murder.”

      And no charges for the women who sought the “murdering doctors” and paid them to commit the “murder”?

  19. Another attack based on religion. Why aren’t they talking about that angle? This was a religion-motivated crime.

    • Because it doesn’t fit the “scaaaaaary mooooslim” narrative. If you look up, you’ll see lots of “No True Scotsman” excuses, too.

  20. Question – Do you sensitive proabortion types find that it ACTUALLY gets you more from more libtard chicks? What other reason would there to be to check into the delusion and irrational motel?

    If this does work for you, then it still isn’t worth guys. Turning yourself into an illogical metrosexual and selling your brain to appeal to some moronic tramp is crazy (see also hang out with her at a Crazy Bernie rally etc etc etc/the entire 60s hippy drug generation). FInd a new plan.

    • What other reason? How about a belief in self-ownership and bodily autonomy, and the fact that fetuses aren’t persons?

      It’s rather telling that you distill it all down to “yeah, does it work with chicks, though?”. Tells volumes about how you view the world.

  21. Im against abortions but all this talk about embryos n stuffs kinda got me, uh, wondering if its still OK to jack off?

  22. So you are buying the line that the videos were “heavily edited”? They released the full videos afterwards and showed they were only edited to shorten them. By that metric every news report is heavily edited and misleading. Maybe you should actually learn about this like you insist anti gunner learn about guns. I expected better from this site.

  23. We get to practice our own choice of religion in this country.
    We are having difficulty getting some people to see the reality of the 2A.
    We don’t want Sharia Law in this country. How about manifesting your religion in your life so people feel it?
    We miss that everyone isn’t the same in this country.
    Still we have freedom of worship.
    I will die as have others to defend your right to practice your religion.
    I don’t have to practice your religion. That is what’s amazing about the US of A.
    Be true to your faith. Imposing yours on someone else is not our way.
    Christians have never, ever heard it said that they go to hell because someone else sins.
    Keep government out of our religion.
    It could come back to haunt us.
    Stop asking government to declare our religious values for all US citizens.
    Get it?

  24. I have to say that I’m really surprised at the turn this discussion has taken. The article is about a gun owner (for better or for worse he was a gun owner) who was either deranged or just a plain sociopath who used the dreaded Soviet style SKS rifle to shoot unarmed people in an active shooter scenario. The media and the antis are sure to use him as a poster boy for the way they want to paint all of us. Obama and his minions were probably rubbing their hands in glee when it happened following the time honored Liberal tradition of never letting a crisis go to waste in order to push their agenda.

    But most of the comments here have devolved into a debate on abortion and, shockingly, whether it’s okay to be an active shooter and murder people you don’t agree with in the name of the sanctity of life. Trust me, if some Lib jumps on here, and you can trust there are Libs watching this site, and copies some of the comments I’ve read, they will have plenty of ammunition to paint gun owners as blood thirsty maniacs who shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun.

    Get real, people, this guy is a terrorist who slaughtered people based on his religious beliefs. He is no different in that respect than the scum Muslims who slaughtered people in Paris or Belgium or San Bernardino. Anyone who claims God ordered them to murder people is a psychopath. I am a Christian, and this is not Christianity.

    Now, feel free to flame me all you want because I really couldn’t care less, but I make my living trying to prevent stuff like this and this guy is the enemy and as much of a problem as any other terrorist. Left wing, right wing, Muslim or Christian, a pile of garbage by any other name is still garbage.

    • + 1 godzillion. This guy was a nutter, plain and simple. People are butthurt because he turned out to agree with them on a certain issue (and others, including some people I’ve found are usually pretty intelligent, are actually trying to *justify* this murderous rampage on specious “defense of life” grounds–I’ve pointed out repeatedly how that won’t fly even if one accepts the premise that abortion is murder).

      As far as turning this into an argument about abortion: Well you see, Mikial, there are some people who are obsessed with the abortion issue and will bring it in “out of the blue” if necessary. You’ll be reading along in the comments section and some lackwit has to throw in some comment about killing fifty million “babies” even though it has zilch to do with the topic. This post, of course, at least alluded to the issue, so they came out in full force. “Oh LOOK!! My chance to beat the abortion drum on a gun blog!!!!”

      (To be fair, some people had to do it to justify their arguments that shitforbrains was justified–but that’s worse. Some people here genuinely scare me now, and they didn’t, before.)

      • Poor baby. Equating a low IQ with opposing the murder of children…are you sure you’re not a troll for the left-wing gun grabbers?That’s their tack for attacking 2A supporters(“you dumb,right-wing hicks with sexual issues”) lol…and you seem to have a tenuous grasp of Christianity. You are what you do-not some catechism you chant…

        • You do realize you just provided a perfect example of what SteveInCO was saying. How’s it feel to be the poster boy for the Lib’s anti-gun agenda.

          Enough of this stupidity. This conversation is over.

        • Walker,

          Normally I find your commentary unworthy of response, but here you threw out some unusually ridiculous stuff, even by your standards.

          Equating a low IQ with opposing the murder of children.

          Your reading comprehension (as in the ability to read a mildly complex sentence) sucks. The people I called “lackwits” were those who thought it was appropriate to hijack gun related threads with sideswipes on the abortion issue.

          …are you sure you’re not a troll for the left-wing gun grabbers?

          If you seriously think that being pro-choice necessarily means someone is secretly anti-gun, you are far and away the most idiotic person in the room.

      • Thanks, StevelnCo. I was beginning to wonder if i was the only person who was seeing it this way.

        • Did I scare you Mik? Like Steve? Didn’t you “claim” to be some kind of “terror fighter”? Ya’ know I never said I agreed with the lunatic murdering-just that if you murder your child you ain’t innocent. And you sound quite similar to the anti-gunners…label anyone who disagrees with you as a sociopath or terrorist. Rules for radicals much? THIS conversation is NEVER OVER…

        • LOL Walker!

          You actually think I’m scared of you?

          The people who scare me are the ones who support Dear’s actions. (Again, you fail reading comprehension.)

          Since you insist you don’t, you sure as hell aren’t scary to me. Ridiculous, yes. Scary…no.

  25. Best damn posts of any article this year.

    Another prediction (oh gawd); as our nations civil unrest grows, along with other groups (mostly governmental), abortion doctors will be getting killed off.

  26. So the solution to murder … is more murder? Yeah, I’m calling this one: he’s insane.

    When he claims insanity defense, remind him that in the Old Testament, there is no insanity defense. Murderers all die, regardless of who or how.

  27. Worst damn post of the entire year.
    TTAGH loves to beat the drum of pro abortion, anti-Catholic Church and quasi communist-socialist mantras. This place was even moderately supportive of Obama back in 2008.
    My prediction is that the Catholic Church (along with conservative churches) will be the first ones targeted by the godless left. Just like Obama s right now targeting the little sisters of the poor and Chick-fil-a who don’t want to provide the morning after pill to there workers.
    Your prediction is found wanting.

  28. For all the people claiming that the solution to murder is NOT murder?

    When in history(overall) has that been true?

    Really, I don’t see how killing them is not a valid solution.

      • I won’t hold my breath. From what I’m seeing, there’s nothing more common around here than anti-abortion internet commandos willing to proclaim it’s OK to kill abortion providers in cold blood…but unwilling to do it themselves. Oh, and its indicative that they won’t condemn the pregnant woman, even though she’s contracting for the so-called “murder.” With any real crime, she’d be considered a co-conspirator and therefore as guilty–and punishable to the same extent–as the actual executor of the act. Yet they don’t advocate slaying the woman who got an abortion. Why is that?

        These people don’t really believe the shit they’re shoveling.

        • You advocate killing by Stoopid 1? And I got a “commented moderated” for suggesting a certain Democrat gal should never be “allowed ” to take the oath of office-in jest. I guess RF succeeded in this clickbait post…maybe I should be afeared of YOU stevie.

        • Advocating Stoopid 1 do the deed now are we? Are you double-daring him Stevie? Maybe I should be afeared of YOU. I guess if RF and Company think it’s OK in the name of clickbait…

    • You’re absolutely right. The guy, and anyone else like him, should rot in prison for life. But we shouldn’t stoop down to his level and execute him. ~

Comments are closed.