Previous Post
Next Post

“Regardless of the facts, liberals like Rep. Rice will always view gun owners as ‘domestic security threats.’ They represent the stereotypical right-wing Middle American that liberals so despise. The caricature of a gun owner is a white male who will never check his privilege. He may own a Confederate flag, and probably takes stands on social policy that would get him fired from Google.” – Scott Greer in Liberals Will Always See Gun Owners As ‘Domestic Security Threats’ [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I don’t remember meeting that little bit$h. He obviously remembers meeting me. Maybe I cut off his Honda Fit with my truck. I’m not sure.

    • I must have read his story incorrectly, he is calling out the left on how they think, not writing anything negative about 2A supporters. Maybe click on the link to read his whole story? Then read some of his other stories on the site.

      • Was referring to Representative Rice. Wasn’t going to click on a Daily Caller article and assumed was a male. I was incorrect. Thank you so much for straightening all this out. One more piece of the internet is fixed.

        • Thing is, it was obvious from just the words on this page without even following the link to the conservative website daily caller. Be sure of the identity of your target before firing. You were having violent fantasies against a good guy. I have made the same mistake, generally because TTAG hits us with these first thing in the morning. I think they want us angry and miserable first thing.

        • My target was Representative Rice, not the writer. Give it a rest. The internet is not perfect.

        • You didn’t have your daily violent fantasy this morning? Well, there’s a lot of this day left, so don’t lose hope. However, if the fantasy fails to appear, you’re going to have to renounce your NRA membership, surrender all of your firearms to the local constabulary, and join the nearest Antifa group. It’s in the rules. If you’d like some suggestions, my violent fantasy today involved an AK-47 with a 30-round “banana clip”, Mother Teresa, and just a banana. Good luck.

  2. While it’s absolutely true that most gun owners these days aren’t what Moist Waffle up there thinks, plenty of folks on this blog’s comments section do their part to reinforce the stereotype.

    • “Moist waffle.” I’m stealing that. 🙂

      Another thing these moist waffles don’t get: I don’t give a damn what they think… or “feel.” Not my problem.

      PS to admin: Are you EVER going to fix the comment software? So annoying…

      • MamaLiberty,

        A friendly reminder regarding your comment:

        Another thing these moist waffles don’t get: I don’t give a damn what they think… or “feel.” Not my problem.

        I agree with your sentiment … and yet a certain fantastic pearl of wisdom rings in my head:

        You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.

        Certainly, another person’s thoughts or feelings are not your problem — until that other person makes it your problem when he/she forces his/her thoughts or feelings upon you. Note that those other people may force themselves upon you directly or indirectly through elected/appointed government agents.

        Another pearl of wisdom rings in my head:

        The only gunfight you are guaranteed to win is the gunfight that never happens.

        We naturally apply that nugget to the idea of a gunfight with a two-bit thug who wants our property, bodies, or lives. Where we almost universally fail: applying that same nugget to the idea of a gunfight with government agents who come for our property, liberty, bodies, or lives even though we have attacked no one.

        To the extent that it is possible to defend our property, liberty, bodies, and lives with words, we should pull out all the stops … even though the thoughts and feelings of our opposition are not our direct problem.

        • Thanks… I’ve lived most of 71 years understanding all that pretty well. I’m old. I’m tired, and I won’t be around much longer. I’ve fought the battle for individual liberty for most of my life. I carry a gun all the time, and I spend as much time as I can teaching others to defend themselves…

          Carry on with the political battles if you are young and strong enough. As for me… I don’t give a shit anymore what these people think. And it is no longer MY problem. 🙂

          Good luck.

  3. “Rice will always view gun owners as ‘domestic security threats’.”

    That is a feature of the Bill of Rights not a bug. Recognition of weapon rights is both a symptom and a cause of a healthy state. More armed men = More freedom. Tyrants should fear free, armed men.

    • ^ Bingo.

      When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

    • I heard third hand this morning that Governor McAuliffe ORDERED the State Police to stand down in Charlotte, claiming that the protestors, many of them armed with ARs, were”better armed than the police” and had “better equipment.” What utter bull shit. Although I cannot agree with racist sentiments, nothing the protesters were doing was in the least illegal, and was in fact under permit. Ordering the police to stand down, as did other mayors in other cities (most notably in my memory the Mayor of Berkeley) was as much responsible for the violence as the presence of the violent Antifa members. The police are more than well equipped to deal with violent protesters, as was shown when one of the organizers of the event was mobbed by Antifa while attempting to give a new conference. The police moved in swiftly, first State police, and then armored and shielded riot police showed up and put a stop to the nonsense. To suggest that they could not have done the same to keep the counter-protesters away from the protesters is utter hogwash. Instead, and with the quick cancellation of the event by the Democrat town mayor, is direct evidence that the event was shut down because the powers that be disagreed with the message.

  4. Good, let them fear us. From my perspective the more they screech and the more they become unhinged the less they accomplish. Plenty of people have purchased their first firearm (and actually learned how to use the firearm) because of people like Rice.

    I enjoy watching would-be tinpot tyrants foam at the mouth, it makes things easier when they out themselves.

    • “…because of people like Rice.”

      That cannot be over emphasized.

      The Second Amendment exists BECAUSE OF people like Kathleen Rice and others of her ilk who vote them into office. We should never forego the opportunity to point out to a tyrant, to his/her face, that the 2A is designed to protect us from them.

  5. Progressive feminist. 🙂

    I was replying to Mama Liberty. Her comment dissapeared while I typed my answer.

    Another correction. Her comment is still there. Apparently I hit the wrong button and my answer missed her.

      • “Without “identity politics,” the left wouldn’t know who they are supposed to hate.”

        That’s their ‘easy out’.

        The haven’t woken up to the fact if they ever expect to win a national election, it’s flat *stupid* to insult the gun owning middle-American voters that they *must* have to win those national elections.

        Myself, I plan on not interrupting my political enemies while they make mistakes that will cost them power.

        I plan on setting up identities on the popular Leftist political websites (like Koz, Daily Beast, etc.) to demand in the comment sections that the Left had better be supporting the politically ‘pure’ candidates that will cost them those very elections… 😉

      • As Curtis in IL points out, identity politics is the only game that’s being played in politics rights now.

        This is ultimately why the Alt-Right becomes inevitable and will be the dominant political philosophy for the next 100 years.

  6. The absolute lowest form of human behavior is white guilt self-flagellation.
    That fellow is oozing with it. Pathetic.

  7. not all liberals think like that. i am a proud liberal and gun owner. i fully support the 2nd amendment and support the loosening of all gun regulations that burden the law abiding citizen that chooses to exercise his or her right to bear arms!

    • Me too.

      Here’s the thing: myopic categorization cuts both ways, and many around these parts are just as incapable of seeing the possibility of a liberal who proudly owns a gun (or more than a dozen in my case) as Ms. Rice up there is of seeing gun owners as anything but neo-Nazi, Vanguard America members.

    • I’m genuinely curious: are you a liberal in the social sense (pro-abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, etc.) or in the economic sense (in favor of increased welfare and government funded social programs, pro government controls on businesses, etc.)? Or both? Where do you come down on issues of identity politics, which seem to dominate liberal political ideology recently?

      I’ve never met a true Pro 2nd-Amendment liberal. I’m very interested to understand how that meshes in with your political leanings.

      • i consider myself quite liberal in social issues and economic issues. businesses need to be strictly regulated to prevent abuses forced on the consumer. it falls perfectly in line with my 2nd amendment right. there are far too many threats to the public from threats such as misguided violent human beings as well as violent wild animals to not be able to carry a gun to defend myself.

        • Regulation and liberty are not compatible. If you support stricter regulation on business, than you have no idea the crushing burden already existing regulations are on small businesses. I wish I could bring you along with me for one day. You would see government in a whole different way.

        • Thanks for the explanation. I suspect we would disagree about quite a few things politically, but I do think it’s important to at least try understand another person’s perspective. I have a better sense of where you’re coming from.

          Your views on gun rights acknowledge that the government cannot be tasked with ensuring our safety from all threats of physical violence. If government were to attempt to shield us from every source of potential physical violence, the negative consequences of the “solution” may likely outweigh the potential harm prevented.

          As a thought exercise, you may consider at what point this also becomes the case for other threats from which the government may be called to protect us. Product safety? Environmental threats? Poverty? Unpleasant speech? Arguably, the government has a role to some extent in countering the threat of harm posed by each of these issues. However, in every case the imposition and effectiveness of the government solution needs to be balanced against the freedoms and relative effectiveness of personal freedoms and individual liberties. Just as your personal responsible ownership of firearms augments the government’s ability to provide for your safety through law enforcement, the same principle of individual liberty vs. government authority holds true for other areas of concern.

    • That’s great, Michael. Gun “rights” OK. Now, how about my natural right to decide other things… choose my own medical care and medicine, for instance… Just which other “laws” are you abiding… and which ones do you think others must be forced to obey… “for their own good,” of course. Most “liberals” I know see no problem in enforcing the nanny state, and all the theft that it requires… at the point of a gun. That work for you too?

    • As a liberal gun owner do you support the welfare industrial complex that includes gun free zones in public housing projects???

      Do you support homosexual marriage and at the same time support welfare for single mothers with children from multiple men???

      Do you support preventing women from getting married and replacing a father/ husband with a welfare check???

      If you don’t support gun confiscation, do you support confiscation of income and property though high taxes???

      Do you believe a father is not necessary to help raise children????

      • I support birth control education. Effective birth control will fix a lot of those social issues, funny how “conservatives” love to squash them.

        • If you think the hood rats in our inner cities don’t know about condoms and pills, then you’re pretty naive. It’s not an accident that they breed like rabbits. They produce welfare-dependent babies as part of their life mission.

        • My position on abortion is irrelevant, since they’re having babies on purpose. Unless you were referring to compulsory abortions?

          I’m pro self-reliance and anti-welfare.
          Birth rates among the inner-city poor will plummet when the artificial profit motive is removed.

        • Binder
          It never ceases to amaze me how homosexuals and the rest of the utopian leftist progressive socialist types, want to determine just how many black children are born.
          I think people like you are a bunch of racist white devils.

          A hundred years ago the church took care of the people who needed it. Now the atheist racists want the government to tell black people how to live.

          Margaret Sanger is alive and well inside you.

    • As others above me have alluded, the liberal agenda cannot be brought to fruition upon an armed populace. At some point, the people will rise up and put an end to the nanny state, when they realize their nannies are taking their hard-earned money and giving it to people who have no intention of earning anything.

    • So who do you vote for then? Because now literally all democrat and liberal politicians are in favor of strict gun control.

      • I work on changing the minds of other liberals and from there, changing the party platform.

        It is difficult, because I believe the Dems are dead wrong on guns, but I also don’t think the government has any business intruding on American’s bedrooms and uteruses, so the R’s suck.

        I also believe that the Republican economic policies talk a good game, but in actuality are a con that benefits very few at the expense of the lower and middle classes who vote against their own self-interest for a fantasy they are being sold by a Republican Party that doesn’t give a shit about them.

        • Well, Swarf, aside from anything I might do that would actually threaten or harm other people, I don’t consider anything about my life or decisions that would be anyone else’s business in the least.

          But I actually agree… nothing about either (or any) political party is beneficial to our individual liberty, safety or prosperity. They ALL have a wonderful plan for our lives and property, and we don’t have anything to say about it.

  8. I. Will. Not. Check. My. “Privilege.”

    Here’s an idea: Until you’ve walked a mile in another man or woman’s shoes, don’t assume you know what type of privilege they enjoy, or challenges they face. That’s highly personal to every individual.

    If you’re out there in the world assuming that you know who has privilege, based solely on their skin color and gender, you are part of the problem.

  9. Not all lefties are averse to violence themselves. There were at least two instances of newsies being punched out over the weekend, one in Charlottesville and another in Richmond. Both were in a group of “Antifas” who didn’t want what they were doing documented on video.

  10. One thing Conservatives (and I hope POTG) don’t do, is let ahole communist liberal POS (D) MFs define them. It’s kinda like Jewish TV producers hitting Christians with a steady stream of “The True Meaning of Chirstmas” every FING year. You don’t get a vote until you catch a clue. We’ll tell you when that is.

    It ain’t for the POS (D) and left of all satan’s minions stripe to say that the “white nationalists” are any part of any “right wing” (even if they call themselves that). Or that they in any way represent Trump supporters, even if some happen to be so.

  11. Well, it’s ok. I will always see them as commie garbage. Not particularly interested in finding a ‘middle ground’ with people whose ideology resulted in a large number of my family either being shot or shipped to gulags.

  12. David Horsey, editorial cartoonist for the LA Times, pretty much sums up the lib-prog view of gun owners. Used to be funny and ironic when he was in Seattle (years ago when Seattle was still a nice city to live in).

    The level of hatred and vitriol that Horsey spews stuns even me sometimes.

    Google up David Horsey NRA or David Horsey Guns to see some of the images. I had no idea that as a gun owner in America I was this morbidly obese, that I carried 7 guns at a time, that I bathed in blood, and that I screamed every word I ever utter.

  13. Regardless of the facts, liberals like Rep. Rice will always view gun owners as ‘domestic security threats.’

    And the key problem is in the words “regardless of the facts”. It is another way of demonstrating the PROBLEM that Progressives operate on altruism, fantasy, and emotion. Of course FACTS play no role in altruism, fantasy, and emotion.

    And now for two key questions:
    (1) Is it even possible for Progressives to stop operating on altruism, fantasy, and emotion?
    (2) If it is possible, how do we accomplish this?

    These are not trivial questions to ask. If we do not have a positive answer to both questions, we will either have to SUBMIT to Progressive whims or defeat them by force … and both will involve significant loss of property, liberty, and life on both sides. I sure would like to preserve our property, liberty, and lives without a bunch of untimely losses.

    • “And now for two key questions:
      (1) Is it even possible for Progressives to stop operating on altruism, fantasy, and emotion?”

      Not the ‘good little progressives’.

      “(2) If it is possible, how do we accomplish this?”

      See my answer to that above.

      The most effective way is to troll the Leftist comment sections with demands of political purity in their candidates.

      Demand ‘single payer’, strict gun control, etc.

      Demand they be as hard Leftist as they can possibly be, to the point that their candidates be un-electable in ‘middle America’.

      They *must have* the vote of middle America to regain the political power they so dearly crave…

  14. Liberal whites are no different than the Klu Klux Klan. They both want the government to confiscate guns from black people.
    They both want to control the lives of Black people.

  15. The government does not enforce many of its laws. The laws protecting employee rights, the laws against monopolies, the laws against use of a gun in a felony, all get peead down if they ever go to trial. Laws with no teeth are not laws at all, just tricks to get someone to incriminate themselves, bypassing the 5th.
    We need to set time limits on all laws, so instead om making new knee jerk laws, lawmakers can focus on making laws that matter.
    The government likes it that there are so many laws, that way they can jail someone for jay walking and then trumping something on him/her. They also threaten those who may have a gun in the house, when some crime they pulled off the books can force you to plea to keep you from a gun charge.

  16. Because gun owners would stand in the way of their Socialist Paradise.
    Watch the old film clip where the discussion is the 25 million americans that will need to be sent to reeducation camps.
    Not going to be so easy to round up if they have guns.

    • Being fired is a bad thing. For right or wrong it doesn’t matter where you were fired from or why, the mere fact that you’ve been fired is a permanent hindrance to being hired. Even if you were morally right you’ll still have to explain it away on your next interview.

  17. Libs, as were the Brtts in their day, are always wary of those who stand up for their God given rights because it is the Libs who wants to take those rights away. It is an armed populace that is the last resort to maintain those rights. Look who is causing the most violence these days, the Libs, not the NRA.

    Of course REALITY is a commodity that many libs can’t deal in. Mostly they live in a fantasy world that would make a sane person shudder.

  18. “Regardless of the facts, liberals like Rep. Rice will always view gun owners as ‘domestic security threats.’”

    Once you see the world their way, the facts actually support their position. “Domestic security” and “threat” mean something consistent, very specific, and not what they mean to mundanes. Their security, and a “threat” meaning “ability to oppose” their doing anydamnthing they want, or even just mitigate the consequences of some choices they’ve made. What’s the point of letting predators, thugs, crazies and terrorists run amok if you’re not just gonna die from it?

    The mere fact of you doing something something on your own behalf is enough that this must not be permitted: a threat to their notion of “security” and “good order.” That it’s effective — crime and violence statistics vs. presence of armed citizens, for example — makes it worse, not better.

    It’s their world. You’re just living it (if that’s what they want.)

    So, why guns? Both a means and a symbol that you’re here too. They’re 2-year-olds railing that there’s a world outside their impulses and needs; even these other people who themselves have their own impulses and needs. Most people grow out of it. The rest go into politics.

    Once you figure that out, their antipathy toward guns makes perfect sense — a means to choose powerfully for yourself. And a symbol that maybe sometimes, only sometimes, it’s your choice to make. They can’t have that.

    Gun owners are “domestic terror threats” because gun owners “threaten” their ability to do anydamnthing domestically, indeed, maintaining the ability to appeal to force to oppose force if it comes to that. They have the 2-year-old’s lack of distinction between #shootfirst and #shootback. The fact that you might push back against their elbowing is an affront.

    In the end, they want you to have the “safety” they allow (or don’t), the “protection” they provide (or don’t), the “autonomy” they tolerate (or don’t), and the “means” they are comfortable with you having (or not.)

    — “Safety” meaning they feel safe, not what you think it means.

    — “Protection” meaning preserving for you the outcomes you *ought* to want, by the means you *ought* to accept, not what you want; means they are OK with you having, not you are OK with using; preserving you as they determine you should be, not as you are, as bog made you, or as you wish to be.

    — “Autonomy” meaning free to make the choices they find acceptable (for you — they get to make other choices, with different options.)

    — “Means” meaning what they’ve decided you can, and should do, with the tools they’ve allowed you … decidedly not the tools you’ve chosen, or using what you have as you will.

    They exist. You don’t. Once you figure that out, they are perfectly predictable. Also, since you are literally nothing, they can do anydamnthing they want to you, and won’t be stopped by appeals to equity, rights or anything else. They will do literally anything within the reach of their arm.

    The sadly consistent mindset that drives them to rail against “guns” is the most compelling reason for the right to personally bear arms. IF they could, they’d hijack (further) the mechanisms of government to impose their will on a recalcitrant world, especially you. They’ll take it as far and as hard as they can unless and until stopped by main force. Often the inevitable end state of force on force stops them before it gets there. But, that’s all that stops them.

    They cannot be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop… ever, until something stops them.

    Forever and ever, amen.

  19. This is my daily “the founding fathers were geniuses” moment. They really could see the tyrants in the future. Thank you for the 2nd Amendment, distant ancestors, we will try to keep the torch of freedom burning!

  20. I am no threat to any one except those who try to harm me or steel from me
    or those to try to take away my means to protect my life and property.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here