Previous Post
Next Post


Gun lovers love liberty. Well, unless they work for the ATF. See what I did there? I took a shot (so to speak) at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (and Really Big Fires) without calling them a name. OK, sure, I’ve called them “goons” before. A few times. But there’s a difference between the take-no-prisoners rhetoric deployed against gun control advocates by TTAG’s writers and the buckets of bile thrown at pro-gun folk by people who support civilian disarmament. Just lately, I’ve noticed it getting worse . . .

I’m not referring to the image above. That’s bog standard stuff for gun-hating editorial cartoonists; artists who can no more make a living without malicious mischaracterization than a firearms trainer can without mnemonic acronyms. (FWIW) I’m talking about people like Shannon Watts, whose Mothers Demand Action for Gun Sense in America thinks nothing of threatening to “take out” pro-gun pols. And RI State Senator Josh Miller, who told a pro-2A agitator to attempt procreation by himself, with himself. And the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, who retweeted the above cartoon to its 10.2k followers.

You could say that the antis are growing more frustrated – and thus nastier – as their hopes for a gun-free utopia fade in the face of firearms freedom. Georgia’s recent extension of concealed carry, for example, must really stick in their craw. The Ninth Circuit Court’s Peruta decision, affirming the right of law-abiding Californians to carry handguns in public, has got to leave a mark. Lest we forget, Illinois is no longer the last redoubt of anti-concealed carry fervor.

Then again, Connecticut. New Jersey. New York. California. Maryland. States where post-Newtown gun control legislation found fertile ground. And this week’s Jackson decision, blessing the San Francisco law requiring gun owners to lock-up their guns at home – even if they live alone. And the forthcoming canonization of Sandy Hook Promise advocacy director Mark Barden for using his son’s death to disarm law-abiding Americans.

So no, I don’t think the antis’ increasing hatred springs from the resistance to universal background checks, magazine capacity limits, assault weapon bans, mandatory reporting of stolen firearms or any of their other disarmament dreams. These zealots and anti-gun extremists are not deterred by setbacks. I think their mounting ire’s down to the fact that their stranglehold on the mainstream media is becoming increasingly irrelevant. They can no longer hide the truth about guns.

Before the Internet Age, this video would have never been seen by anyone other than the person who shot it and his immediate circle of friends. As of this writing, over 7k people have viewed it. So far, some 155k watched the RI State Senator’s show his anti-gun debating skills, or lack thereof. That’s not much compared to the 22.5 million people who watch one of the three nightly news programs. But the pro-gun message is out there, somewhere, accessible to all.

Make no mistake. The anti-gunners are aware of the dangers of a free press. The entire gun control “movement” is based on unquestioned acceptance of a simple idea: guns are bad. Anything that can be done to restrict them is good. (Moms Demand Action’s occasional clam that they support the Second Amendment is entirely without substance.) Is it true that guns are bad? Don’t even think about it! Luckily people are . . .

Look at the anti-gun rally guy on the left of the screen at 1:32 into the video. The pro-gun advocate hands him a flyer. The anti-gun handler – the lady who calls our pro-gun guy a parasite – puts her hand out. She fully expects the onlooker to hand the flyer back to her as the others have, without so much as glancing at it. He doesn’t. He reads it. He ignores her outstretched hand and keeps the flyer. There’s your trouble. Well, not your trouble. The trouble faced by the antis. They can’t stop the signal.

According to Gallup (as reported by, support for “stricter” gun control rose to 58% in the weeks after the Newtown massacre. By last October, it had fallen to 49%. You might think the drop reflects good old American ADD. I like to think it shows that the fence-straddling populace contemplated the difference between a crazy killer killing kids and responsible gun owners exercising their gun rights without government interference, and changed their minds.

In my recent “interview” with Elliot Fineman, the CEO of the National Gun Victims Action Council tried to filibuster my arguments challenging his belief that any American taking drugs for mental health issues should be denied their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights. He couldn’t engage in a proper debate because that’s not what gun control advocates do. They don’t parry. They proselytize. In fact, Elliot Fineman, Shannon Watts, Colin Goddard et al. are so used to preaching to the choir they fail to recognize that the devil’s calling the tune. Point that out and you’re the devil.

You know what gets their proverbial goat? Coherent thought. When the “silver-tongued Devil” starts making sense about armed self-defense and the unconstitutional, impractical, ineffective folly of gun control, when he refuses to let them change the subject, they behave like a cornered animal. They lash out blindly. No holds barred. Without manners or remorse. With pleasure.

In the video above, you can sense the woman’s joy as she calls out “parasite.” You can hear it when gun grabbers and their media minions lace into “the gun lobby” or the “pathetic people who support the NRA.” It’s not that the antis get off on their anger. They really get off on it. Their “you’re too stupid to understand what’s good for you” self-righteous fury creates a positive feedback loop. They’re right, so they’re angry; they’re angry, so they’re right. Even better, it’s all for the children.

I know: spewing hate to eliminate violence is like using violence to eliminate hate. There’s no sense in it – only a misguided sense of mission dressed-up as idealism. (As Bertrand Russell observed, “much that passes as idealism is disguised hatred or disguised love of power.”) The fact that there is opposition to civilian disarmament, that it isn’t composed of ignorant white racist rednecks, that it’s seeping through and around the mainstream media, is slowly dawning on the antis. They’re not happy. They’re “acting out” like never before.

Which suits me just fine. Remember that old playground rhyme: “I’m rubber, you’re glue; whatever you say, bounces off of me and sticks to you?” Like that.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Let’s be honest here. One can easily find plenty of hate in the comments posted here on TTAG toward the anti-crowd. In fact the venom here is so intense at times it devolves into psychotic rage.

    So we can take note of the hate on the other side, but let’s also be willing to call out our own when they embrace the same gutter- rhetoric.

    • Or even towards fellow pro RKBA crowd, depending where you stand on private property rights and other ancillary issues.

      One thing the anti gun crowd is, is consistent and unified. Pro gun crowd is factionalized. Pro Glock, anti Glock. Pro shooting aggressive pitbulls, anti shooting pit bulls. Pro warning shots, anti warning shots. Pro OC, anti OC. Pro NRA, anti NRA. Pro shooting a bum with knives, anti shooting a bum with knives. Pro LE militarization, anti militarization. etc etc….

      Lack of cohesiveness in the pro RKBA crowd is how the antis get their traction on the issue. Food for thought the next time the TTAG crowd feels like bashing a fellow pro RKBA over a nascent issue.

      NO this doesnt mean you have to restrain your opinions, just bear in mind who the real enemy is before you unleash your invective on a fellow RKBA person over their take on matters. Its pretty sad when supposed RKBA TTAG posters here fly off with the “that type shouldnt have guns” as with the pit bull shooting issue. Doing the antis work for them, they love it.

      • “One thing the anti gun crowd is, is consistent and unified. Pro gun crowd is factionalized.”

        Anti gun crowd is following the dogma without individual thought. There are no latitudes for going off script.
        Pro-gun crowd allows for discussion of the different nuances IRT Freewill and Choice. We realize there is always differing points of view. An example would be 2A rights vs private property rights.

        Hate will be spoken and written by both sides. The difference is the pro gun side would most likely attempt to reign in the hate while the anti gun side will encourage it.

        • Yep!

          That’s why comments are frequently disabled and those posting opposing views no matter how polite and well reasoned, are banned from the various antis’ sites.

        • Thank you. We disagree simply because we can think. They cannot, or else they’ve chosen not do. Disagreement is a healthy thing.

      • All Good points, Delbert, but all said, ya’ still gotta’ have a sense of humor and simply stand down without taking offense when it’s time to agree to disagree.

        Without a sense of humor (“must be on your meds today’), one can take themselves too seriously and become as narrow minded and intolerant as the antis.

        • I was trolling antis on the net before most current weenbags were ever weaned. The wild west days of the net are long gone. Nobody even remembers the veggie BCR wars anymore. Those were the days, taking DOWN your opponents freakin websites. No mercy. Trying to play right in these PC times is like trying to hide a DRACO in your Speedo.

      • Well said, sir. We have our anti ATF / pro ATF, .40 is awesome / .40 is garbage, .45 kills the soul and anyone who doesn’t use it is an idiot, 1911s are the paragon of handguns / 1911s are obsolete, Glock “perfection” / Glocks are garbage, piston / DI, AR vs AK, shoot a vicious dog / don’t shoot a vicious dog, pitbulls can be psycho / pitbulls are the gentlest dogs ever, Republican vs Independent (or Democrat if you really hate guns) debates. They regularly get nasty.

        Meanwhile, the antis hate all guns in the hands of civilians. If you don’t work for the government, you shouldn’t have a gun anywhere. Period. We’ll maybe allow you to look at a gun behind a plexiglass museum case, but only if you promise to feel bad afterwards.

        Hate is alive and well on both sides of the pro / anti aisle. Frankly, I’ve got a lot of ire for politicians who subvert rights and waste taxpayer money (which seems like most of the politicians we have, actually). At the end of the day, I want to be known as pro-truth, pro-freedom, pro-responsibility, and pro-taxpayer. I try to make an effort to speak highly of the founding fathers, DGU heros, and the greatness of freedom. A positive mental attitude is one of the keys to living life well.

      • Such as “libtard” and other invective hurled at those among us who do not identify as conservative. I in fact disagree with much of conservatism as it is now put forth (I voted for Nixon in 1968 who pushed for some of the first pro environment legislation) but it seems a good idea to recognize an ally when it comes to the issue most important to most if not all of the folks in this forum. For me it is simple. I have the right to protect my family and myself regardless of my location on the planet. We own and carry firearms to that purpose. Calling me and others of my political persuasionnames does not help. Carry on and have a good day.

        • Libtards are anti gun. Guess you arent a libtard then. Liberalism is a cult, a mental disease, and a scourge. Libtards are the biggest threat to the Bill of Rights. No mercy on libtards.

        • The very worst thing I see here is the unthinking use of the word “libtard”. And it’s used about people who are not ANYTHING-tard.

          It makes the user seem like an ASStard. It’s unthinking and utterly without use of reason. Cut the crap, people.

        • If “libtard” is the worst you see then you probably wouldnt like my moldy Hustler collection.

      • “Pro shooting a bum with knives, anti shooting a bum with knives.”

        TACTICAL PAUSE! Stop the presses! Hold my calls!

        There’s such a thing as a m*therf*cking gun that shoots KNIVES!!! A real gun?! Not a stoopid Russian rocket knife?!

        And I may or may not be able to shoot a bum with it?

        This, my good sir, is a glorious day.

    • The problem there Paul is that you are making a moral equivalence argument where there is none.

      I started to begin with a joke, “Well, yeah, but since we are RIGHT, it’s okay.”

      It is a joke, but one with an element of truth.

      The problem is, we get hateful and angry because they are stepping on our rights…they are telling us how to live, act, work, play. We get angry and yell, “Leave us alone!”

      What are they hateful and angry and yelling about? “You are not acting like I want you to. Do what I tell you!”

      There is no moral equivalence in their anger/hatred and ours. Well, I cannot speak for everyone on our side, but I do think it’s the majority. If “they” would leave us the hell alone, we would have absolutely no reason to lash out, figuratively or otherwise.

      • ^This!

        Though I’d just like to add that in addition to trampling our rights, they slander us, impugn our character, and proactively seek ways to put us in jail. Which all adds up to being very valid reasons to hate these people.

        Like JR said, if they’d just leave us alone, we wouldn’t hate them, but our mere continued existence (which has no bearing on them) is their reason for hating us.

      • Why are they angry? Because of fear. Yoda summed it up nicely: “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

        These are people that do not want the right and responsibility of self-protection. They want that removed, because accepting means that you need to accept that the bad things can happen to you. They might burst through your front door and hurt you and your loved ones.

        Accepting this fact is extremely difficult, because it means you have two options: exercise your RKBA or keep rolling the dice on your safety. For the anti-gun crowd, it’s easier to call pro-gunners paranoid psychos because if we eventually make the law say there are no guns, THEN *POOF* we all live in safe-happy-fun land where nobody gets shot EVER. Bad guys won’t be able to hurt anyone again. We’ll work on knives and hammers later. But in the meantime, all those rat-bastards that insist that the 2nd Amendment actually means something are putting an obstacle between their ostrich heads and the nice, soft sand – and that is uncomfortable. And inconsiderate. Because children. Because movie theaters. Because everyone knows, this country has always been founded on legislating against the people as if they were criminals before they become criminals, for safety reasons.

        Nope, not grounded in reality, but the fear is very real – as is the hate and anger that fear generates.

        • One thing people tend to forget: When people who want to run everyone else’s life become intolerable, the natural response is to pack up and go where you’re left the hell alone. That response prompted every westward migration in our country’s history. Unfortunately, there isn’t anywhere left to emigrate to.

    • Absolutely.

      I’ll also note that “gun lovers love liberty” is certainly not true as a blanket statement. All you can say about gun lovers is that they love _guns_. The right to keep and bear arms is a subset of “all rights that exist,” and plenty of gun lovers hate lots of other rights.

    • Paul does have a point. The “Are Democrats really all a bunch of blood-drinking cannibals” discussion degenerated into a pretty nasty situation and stayed there for over 200 comments. There are some hateful people on this side too, and they’re just as convinced that everything they think is right and that anyone who doesn’t think exactly like them is stupid or evil. And I mean EXACTLY like them.

      How is that productive in any way?
      If someone is working with me, sending money to protect the 2A with me, writing letters to congressmen with me, and able to reach an audience that would never listen to me, then that person is not “the enemy.” That person is an asset that the RKBA community can’t afford to throw away.

      Even reasonable people can get very defensive when their views are challenged. Some of us (myself included at times) hold some beliefs so deeply that attacking those beliefs can be taken as a personal attack. Hell, sometimes the people attacking us ARE making straight-up personal attacks. It’s very hard to not respond in-kind.

      But we have to stay above that.
      If what RF says above is true, that reasonable people considering the evidence and changing their minds is the reason for declining support for gun control, then how we act and what we say matters. Some on here have argued that those people don’t matter, but that’s a preaching-to-the-choir mentality. If the only people that your message resonates with is the “choir,” what’s the point of even speaking it?

      • I do think that some misconstrue that some of our admonitions to use the Liberal Left’s tactics against them implies compromising our collective honorable principles and our ownership of pure truth (facts and data) in order to do that.

        That is not the intent.

        The intent of using the Liberal Left’s tactics against them is to put yourself in a position where you can allow the person you are debating enough room (presumably a foaming-at-the mouth, won’t-be-convinced Leftist) to show him/her self to the audience (ie. the people you want to convince) that the Liberal ideals espoused by your debate partner are the result of cowardice, lack of honor, projection of their fears onto everyone else, hatred and fear of their neighbors, by exposing their lies, obfuscation, and personal attacks for what they are.

        Exactly like in the video Robert linked. Notice the gun rights person does nothing at all wrong, just keeps walking quietly around, handing out his fliers while the woman hysterically follows/stalks him, calls him names, shrieks at the other attendees, accuses him of “scaring her”, etc. He exposes her without doing anything “mean” or “dirty” at all!

        • Just three days ago you were fine with people spreading outright lies and cherry-picked “facts” to make Democrats look bad. Today, you don’t want to compromise our honor and prefer to instead stick to facts and truth. Now that’s quite a change.

          Honestly, I feel like you and I are fighting different battles. You don’t like “liberals” and I guess that’s your right. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. I don’t know how effective you’re going to be at eliminating the political left – they’ve always been there and they always will be. And liberals were born in this country just like you were. Some of them have served in the military, many of them are productive tax-paying citizens, and a great many just want to live their lives. This country belongs to them as much as it belongs to anyone, no more – but just as much. Trying to eliminate or target “liberals” isn’t a fight I want or need to be engaged in, especially since I think they’re right a lot of the time.

          I’m fighting against infringements on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (and on infringements against other rights when I can). Liberal, conservative, whatever… I ain’t got the luxury of being picky. If you agree with me on guns and you’re willing to send money and letters to reps to help me preserve it, then I can shut my yap about anything else we disagree on long enough to work with you. Ain’t no room for petty disagreements in the battle I’m fighting.
          I’m even willing to work with you personally. You’ve called liberals (me) your enemy half a dozen times on TTAG. If gun control comes up again tomorrow, I’m still going to be sending letters and money right along with you. I’m a better ally on gun control than Mitt Romney ever thought about being… I just happen to think that pot should be decriminalized, I think gay people should be treated equally and be left in peace, and I’d like to be able to drink clean water that hasn’t been polluted by out-of-control corrupt industry. If that puts me on the “liberal” side sometimes, so be it.

        • Your entire premise is wrong and therefore everything you say following it that builds upon it is wrong:

          Just three days ago you were fine with people spreading outright lies and cherry-picked “facts” to make Democrats look bad.

          Nope I never said that. Matter of fact what I said is that learning how to take on the other side’s tactics is a good thing and went on to say that as part of the learning process we need to remember to be factual.

          So what you said about me is a a lie and anything you build on after that is also a lie.

        • The way a person’s brain works is what makes them a Liberal.

          Being for things like: “just happen to think that pot should be decriminalized, I think gay people should be treated equally and be left in peace, and I’d like to be able to drink clean water that hasn’t been polluted by out-of-control corrupt industry. ” are being a responsible human being.

          You are not a Liberal. Having a position on such controversial and personal topics does not make a person Liberal. How a person puts no thought into their positions, lies, and projects – that’s what makes a person a Liberal.

          …for the record I take the exact same positions you do on those same issues. And I am very far from being a Liberal. My position on how to beat them is totally consistent is consistent and has been consistent since day one. I challenge you at any level to find any inconsistencies in my position (not whether they are right or wrong in your mind, but inconsistent!) and point them out. Please. Because if they exist I want to fix them.

        • H.R.’s pushing your buttons. He’s also doing EXACTLY what he’s accusing you of doing.

        • I’m cool with it. I would be completely fine with hearing where I have any inconsistencies because truly, I’d like to know.

          I have invested a significant amount of time and energy developing my position as well as understanding the underlying theory. If there’s a hole I want to know about it.

          (on the other hand if he’s just bloviating I’ve just called his bluff and then we’ll know where he stands, huh?)

        • No, I’m not just trying to push your buttons (or anyone else’s).
          No offense, but were it not for TTAG, I wouldn’t even know you exist.

          I’m referring to this:

          “Mina says:
          March 24, 2014 at 12:07

          I don’t care about the meme I only care about the fact that we are finally making an effort to go after them at their own game.

          Yes we will fumble at times. Yes we will do it wrong. But we will learn. And learn we must.

          The attitude and direction is what I care about. I dont give a crap what the meme thing says. The important thing is the thought is there, now just tighten it up.”

          You weren’t concerned with facts then. If you were, perhaps you should articulate that better in the future.

          And if it you’re right about brain composition being different with liberals, wouldn’t that make your hatred of liberals about as justified as hating someone with mental illness or mental retardation?

          I do understand an aversion to the far-left, arrogant, self-superior types – I can’t stand them either. But don’t you think that saying everyone on the other side of the political fence is “the enemy” may be just a little bit of a stretch? I’ve never had a “liberal” refuse to go try out a 10/22 when I provided the chance, and I’ve made two gun owners out of “liberals” so far. If I thought like you, I would have wasted those opportunities.

          If you start off declaring that people are your enemy, you don’t give them the chance to be anything else. Personally, when it comes time to write angry letters to Representatives, I want everyone with a pulse on the line with me. I’ve got no time for petty disagreements when I’m trying to stop sweeping gun control from becoming law. If I can get a million of the most howling liberals I can find on board with me, I’ll take ’em. If I can only get ten thousand, I’ll take that too. Ten thousand is still a lot of angry letters. Even one thousand is a lot more than I can write by myself.

        • “And if it you’re right about brain composition being different with liberals, wouldn’t that make your hatred of liberals about as justified as hating someone with mental illness or mental retardation? ”

          MINA: You cannot deny that this isn’t an excellent question. One of the best ever here, IMHO. The notion that people’s “brain composition” differs is an absurd notion indeed. All brains are substantially the same, save for size, and size is no measure of intelligence, not at all. Some imbeciles have very large brains, while geniuses are known to sometimes have small ones.

          Perhaps you meant “brain chemistry”? There again, I think both of us are out of our depth.

          How about cognition? I think that’s where the difference may lie. Very smart people can have issues with cognition, seen in cognitive dissonance and in other ways. So maybe we could theorize that (so-called) “liberals” (who are anything BUT liberal, but are closeted totalitarians instead) might have some severe issues in the realm of cognition, which leads them to magical thinking…

        • The Institutional Left is the enemy. Liberals are the enemy. Unfortunately when dealing with large masses of people it is necessary to generalize; while we know outliers are out there we can’t develop strategies for outliers. Sorry.

          My comment is clear as a bell today as it was days ago. Lots of folks called out the inaccuracies of Robert’s post, my focus was completely on the turn of strategy to use the Left’s own tactics against them and the post you copied/pasted as well as all of my other comments on that post were completely consistent with that sentiment.

          I didn’t “care” about the inaccuracies with the facts in the post in the sense that I wasn’t really paying attention to them. I was interested in the strategy, the delivery, the concept of using the Left’s “meme” type idea against them.

          Overall consistently in the many comments I have made on this blog I have said that having facts, data, truth and honor on our side are important but the Liberals don’t understand and want to destroy these things. My consistency is not in question, you merely misconstrued my comments either unintentionally or intentionally.

          I’ll not be changing my delivery. If you want to understand what I have to say please don’t be so quick to focus on your own offense – I am not speaking to You directly as a person, I get that you’re an outlier and now we know each other.

          As far as the brain development, that’s a whole different discussion and I’d love to explore that with you sometime. But no they aren’t born that way, their brains are trained to be that way and usually it’s just shear laziness … 😉

        • Hey, HR- speaking for myself- I understand what you are saying about the definition of liberal- and I agree with your objection to being labeled as some kind of a bad person,

          but I think you might be confusing the intent of the use of the term “liberal” as a short-hand description of groupthink on the left, and how that is “the enemy” to rational thought, for those of us who are arguing for individual rights, and personal freedom. Sort of the Rush Limbaugh use of “liberal” rather than the classical free-thinker version of liberal.

          Me, I prefer prog-tard. And thats meant with a bit of sly fun so dont take that personal either.

          I am sure we can agree on a lot of things, like clean water, clean air, curb your dog, etc. But when it comes to how to treat my body, school my kids, defend my family, I DONT trust the State, and I dont trust what the “Liberals” and “Progressives” have become as they manifest in the Democratic Party today. Does that help?

        • Mr. William, I have offered to indoctrinate Mr. RLC2 to the wickedness of my ways including and not limited to the analysis the brain structure of Liberals.

          If you are interested please email me … [email protected] for all the gory details

        • rlc2 – to be fair, I’m only what you’d call “somewhat liberal.” I’ve got a lot in common with libertarians and agree that the state has no business in most aspects of our lives. Discussions online are impersonal. If you and I had the same conversation over a six pack, we’d probably find a lot of common ground at the end.

          I’ve got a couple problems with Mina’s line of thinking.

          1. I think the institutional left and the institutional right can both accept a lot of blame for trying to interfere with our personal lives.
          2. My position has enabled me to become friends with a lot of people more liberal than myself. They’re not all evil. At the same time, I’ve shown liberals that gun owners are not all evil. One woman I dated was astounded to learn that I’m an NRA member. She’d never known anyone who was before and had a lot of prejudices… until I took her out on the tundra and let her shoot some stuff with my 10/22. After that, she insisted on carrying it back during our hike. She fell in love with that little rifle in about ten minutes. I’ve introduced other liberals to guns and two of them have since bought their own. Taking Mina’s approach would make it impossible to interact with those people nothing you said would ever have any credibility with them. If you declare someone your enemy, he’s going to act like your enemy and he’s going to treat you like one.
          3. There are new gun owners among us and some of them are Democrats. I don’t want new people not being welcome and getting discouraged with us. I also want them to learn to use guns responsibly and safely. Declaring someone “the enemy” may push new “converts” right back and affirm their fears.

          Mina – on the brain development, people with Alzheimer’s, PTSD, or trauma from an automobile accident or combat aren’t born that way either. Is a general fear of veterans with PTSD or brain injuries legitimate because something is different in their brains than it was at birth? You brought up brain composition, now here’s your chance to answer the question for all the veterans on this forum.

          And I think you’re wrong, but I don’t take any of what you say personally – this is the internet and we’re all just anonymous people who probably shouldn’t have access to keyboards.

        • H.R. you are probably a very nice person. I can assure you a keyboard jockey I am not. I get out into the world, I talk to real live people a lot (I live in farm country) and I have invested a TON of time into research on everything that I espouse. I am online during the work day because computers are my work … on a bunch of different levels.

          You have to understand the difference between Generalizing and Taking things personally. I don’t think you’ve made that jump yet. I am sorry about that but it can’t be helped.

          Brain STRUCTURE, not composition. 😉

        • Oh, please don’t get discouraged. I swear I really am a quick learner.

          I’m here and listening… ain’t no crickets in the room to distract me. Please feel free to explain your comments on “brain structure” for myself and Mr. Burke any time you get around to it.

        • Against my better judgement I am willing to share my research with you as well.

          Just in the interest of seeing if we can come to common ground, or agree there is no middle meeting place.

          email me at the email address above. I still have not gotten an email from William Burke – please send!! 🙂

    • Really Paul? “Psychotic Rage” of some posters here at this site against anti-gunners? That’s quite an attack upon an amorphous “them”.

      Why don’t you give us some examples of some one in a “psychotic rage”.

      • Yes I do hear the crickets as well … challenge accepted – H.R. offered to show me where I have been inconsistent in my messaging about how to fight Liberals. I await his response … don’t you love the sound of crickets in the morning?

    • Paul? That discredited moral equivalence point won’t do. There’a difference between the rightful outrage exhibited by firearms freedom supporters in response to being attacked by the gun grabbers, and the wholesale vitriol unilaterally generated by the gun grabbers.

      Chicken and the egg, you say? Well. I argue from the premise that freedom is the default state. I can stand here all day every day and peacefully, privately and quietly exercise my God-given right to keep and bear arms. No one is hurt, involved, or even need notice if they’re just going about their own business.

      If the anti’s or anyone else wants things their way, however, infringing freedom, then they must necessarily resort to nastiness and violence. They cannot persuade me with soft-spoken reason that I have no God-given right to keep and bear arms. I take that right as axiomatic. Clever casuistry, silken sophistry, rants, chants, and bumper sticker slogans all fall and fail to repeal that right. So what’s left to employ then? Volume, invective, and violence, that’s what.

      When a stance can only inevitably lead to that outcome, it begs the question whether that course was set upon in spite of that obvious outcome, or because of it. These angry, controlling self-appointed satraps of the gun grabbing community are inherently vile and that’s why they adopt that stance. It gives them a socially acceptable outlet for dehumanizing others.

    • Way down the list of righteously indignant responses here, but if I may, are you proposing that we should NOT call out and fight with every possible means against statist fascists trying to erode or repeal our natural, civil and Constitutional rights?

      That would be the same as advocating that we should not have used every means to discredit Nazis, Italian fascists, Japanese hegemonists or Soviet communism just because doing so would “lower us to their level.”

      Sorry, if you are on the right side of the moral argument, and we are, then ANY weapon that discredits or destroys your opposition while not diminishing your honor is justified. Appropriate ridicule and appropriate pejorative characterization by derogatory labels is a valid tool in our arsenal.

    • Paul McCain-
      I think I get what you are trying to say- and agree to a point- like Robert’s quote from Hemingway- keeping TTAG ” a clean well-lit space”.

      Yah, ok, and sometimes it gets kinda frat-boy locker-room silly, but then thats part of the feel at times- nothing personal, really.

      And sometimes people can get a bug up their crack and take something too personal, and then its “B1tch-fit!

      I think we need to take ourselves a little less seriously at times…so we dont end up looking like the prog-tards, above.

      And psychosis- no, dont get that, but yeah- a little more class – a little less contempt, and I for one will try harder, I am guilty too.

      PS: to all you prog-tards out there, you know who you are.

      • I propose we refrain from any epithet ending in “-tards”. Except for leotards, which I’ve never worn. But women can, and should!

        It’s arrogant and stupid. We are NOT really talking about anyone who is actually retarded. It’s low rent, without class. Stupid.

  2. My only problem with the guy in the video was that he was handing out the wrong material. He should have been handing out signs and stickers that say “my home is a gun free zone” and advising them to stand up for their beliefs!

    • They are a hate group, as are all groups created by the Liberal Left to rob us of our rights.

      Saul Alinksy’s _Rules for Radicals_ is their bible and it spells out how to implement their hate on a point by point basis.

      Any one of us who does not understand the war at this point really needs to come up to speed, fast.

      • Another good write up! He makes some very compelling arguements, but this is one makes it:

        “Animal rights activists have thrown fake blood on people. They have freed animals from zoos. Some have been listed as “eco-terrorists”. Environmentalists are out spiking trees and picking up trash. Those pushing for marriage equality are forming parades to raise tolerance and acceptance of their cause. Those concerned about STD awareness are passing out free condoms. And so on. In other words, when your typical focus group isn’t lobbying someone, they’re out doing something else that they feel advances their cause and addresses their concerns, legally or illegally.

        Does Moms Demand Action sell (or give away) gun locks or pass out gun safety tips? No. Do they offer any gun safety courses? No. Are they doing anything at all besides asking for legislation and rules? Negative. The only time, in fact, that I’ve ever seen them pass anything out was when they passed out free pie to members of the Colorado state legislature, just before a key vote regarding arming teachers and faculty.

        This suggests that they exist primarily as a hate group. Anyone who expresses legitimate concern about gun safety would do something to improve it, as other focus groups would with their causes and concerns. The fact that they aren’t doing so falls neatly in line with the FBI’s observation of hate groups and how they function.”

        It is remarkably sad that these poor souls find so much solace in villifying normal law abiding citizens that just love being an American.

        • The starting point of psychosis is when a person becomes obsessed with stopping some particular thing, above all other considerations.

  3. A recent post regarding the political leanings of mass killers has me wondering. If such a vitriol, seething hatred, and dispicable/no compromise attitude is making them more vocal and flagrant, how much longer until the next mass shooting starts Sandy Hook v. 2.0?

    Haters gonna hate.

  4. I’ve always wanted to point out to an anti that I actually support their work, because every time one of their hairbrained schemes gets put to a vote, the value of my guns, especially my ARs and AKs, doubles. If it passes, they more than quadruple in value. That’s provided they leave a grandfather clause in, like in the 94 “assault rifle” ban. If they don’t leave a grandfather clause, and simply pull a CT-esque full out ban, with felonies attached, then the entire system falls flat on its face trying to figure out what went wrong and why nobody is complying.

    • Really, you support their work because the value of your guns go up in value? How much your stuff is worth is more important than the Constitution? You should run for congress.

      • I don’t believe that, I just want to bring them the old “Obama: Gun salesman of the year” argument to their unlogic

  5. Law abiding, responsible gun owners = Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…

    Lying, conniving anti-gun zealots = hamsters…

    • I’m pretty sure that’s an insult to hamsters. I had several when I was a lad and they were by and large a live-and-let-live bunch. Except for the one that bit me. He was a real dink.

      • It wasn’t meant to be a slanderous remark toward hamsters, rather to show that the leftists/liberals have one track minds, much like hamsters…

  6. The thing of it is, the professional shills aside, most of the gun control crowd just likes to add this argument to their collection of “activisms,” like a gun grabbing charm on a big stupid bracelet.
    I think the only reason most of them have continued to push at us is because in general, gun folk are easy going, and we tend to react non-threateningly. That’s why there’s no “pro-abortion” counter rallies at clinics- they’re scared shitless of the pro-life crowd, and don’t dare go toe-to-toe. Can’t say as I blame them.
    But us gun guys, this IS our main issue. Which means long after that angry, frumpy lady goes back to the Macy’s counter, or selling Avon or whatever, we’ll still be here, handing out flyers. If we were half as bad as she was pretending we were, she would’ve been running down the street with buckshot in her ass. But since we’re not, she can add her gun control For The Children Merit Badge to her fancy sash, and go about her usual mundane. She ain’t gonna “crash” any gun rallies, any more than she’s going to cut down on carbs. But we will. Because we actually stand for something.

    • I think you’re on to something here. A lot of pro-gun people are single issue on the 2A because they believe it is the bulwark against losing the rest of the BoR. Most anti’s that aren’t the head of an anti-2A group are bouncing back and forth to whatever subject is in vogue or busy feigning outrage at whatever topic sits atop their Twitter feed.

  7. No JR you are missing the point.

    We can gripe and moan all we want and whine about our opponent’s point of view all we want.

    When however our rhetoric sinks to the level of lunatic fringe nut-job level we are no better than they are and are accomplishing nothing.

    • Speaking of nut-job. Anyone have an extra gallon of extra chunky, they are willing to send my way?

    • Man, I am not missing anything. If you are going accuse me of missing something, at least be right about it.

      What I hear from you is “We should play nice with people that are out to destroy us.” Then, you go on to say that any response we make is someone losing the moral high ground.

      It is exactly that kind of attitude that has put us in the position of constantly playing catch-up ball with the grabber.

      Your assertion that we should moderate what we say and let them say whatever they want while claiming that we are in the wrong for calling them out on their crap, even if it is said hatefully, is loser-speak.

      • You’re right, JR, you didn’t miss anything. Paul T. McCain is obviously deflecting. You countered his original assertion with the correct, reasoned answer for which he has no cogent response other than to attempt to divert and re-frame.

      • I concur. Ben Shapiro says that if you are defending your position, this is a point of passivity as the Liberal sees it and it means you are losing.

        The only alternative is to be the one on the offense: making them answer questions, quizzing them on the internal inherent inconsistencies in their argument or restate their positions (frame the discussion) in such a way to cause them to expose themselves as the haters, racists, liars, cowards (at which point you stand back and give a great flourish – never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake Tsun Tsu)

        • This. I highly recommend following the links to the Shapiro videos that Mina referred to above.

          It will help all of us in our “game”, of educating those new to guns or 2A rights, and to defend against the nuts on the left.
          When you can be calm but passionate and frame the debate based on facts, reason, and a moral narrative you win. They cant, and fall into their emotional trap of hating, and name calling when all else fails. Remember the melt-down by the student who didnt get her way at the BDS vote? Thats it.

  8. So now I expect to see a decreased level of trolling/shit talking on here, since were making this a Hate Free Zone right /sarc

    • I wouldn’t hold your breath, brother.

      Everyone likes to pretend they’re more civilized and of a higher intellectual station than their adversary.

      But, the reality is we all throw stones and then quickly run back into our glass houses.

      No one is above some good old fashion name calling.

  9. I have only once in the last three years been able to enter and leave a gun control debate where my opponent remained as polite and cordial as I was towards them.

    More often than not I am interrupted, yelled at, told to think about feelings as opposed to facts, etc. I am told I am closed minded when I’m the only one listening.

    It’s absurd the amount of hate and disrespect that these people, supposedly out for the common good, show to their fellow man.

    My father always said to me growing up, “The empty barrel makes the most sound.”

    • That is the Progressive way no matter what the topic. The key is identifying early on who you are debating. Is it some wayward soul that has just consumed too much rhetoric and never really thought it out or had the inclination to research the topic for themselves? Or is it the hardcore ideologue? If it is the former, I truly believe a polite and friendly conversation can be had for the duration of the debate. If it is the latter, you might as well just accuse them of murder first to get them on the defensive and keep throwing verbal punches until they retreat. I have never had a Proggie not resort to name-calling when they realize that you aren’t buying their brand of morals.

  10. Of course they’re getting nastier and more desperate…

    It’s called “escape extinction” and it’s a law that governors behavior.

    For instance, if a child’s inappropriate behavior was suddenly ignored by the parent, who before engaged the child’s bad behavior (ie giving the child attention), the child may initially increase the rate or volume of inappropriate behavior, as to not lose the attention.

    The child’s increase in bad behavior can be thought of as “trying harder” to get the parent’s attention, or lashing out. The attention is the overall goal, the bad behavior is the means to achieve that goal. The child wants to regain the attention of the parent because it is desirable to the child.

    Now, if the parent’s attention is consistently withheld, then the child’s inappropriate behavior will eventually decrease. But, you will get a large spike in bad behavior initially because the child doesn’t want the parent’s attention to “go away.”

    This is what the anti folks are doing. They feel as though they are losing the attention of the nation because gun control did not gain the traction they had hoped…

    So, to escape extinction (ie, not lose the attention of the nation) they’re increasing the rate and intensity of attention getting behavior.

    Therefore, we just need to keep ignoring the bad behavior, meaning do not engaging them and continue to stopping further gun control attempts.

    If we let them think they have a chance at more gun control, or give them the attention they so desperately seek, then it will only get worse and the nasty behavior will increase even more.

    Behavior is lawful, ladies and gentlemen.

        • You’ve seen it before.

          Give that person enough rope, metaphorically speaking,
          and they will hang themself.

          DiFi in the Cruz debate. Debbie Wasserman-Shulz. Rep Cummings in the IRS hearings. The various MDA spokespeople. Pierced Organ. Radical Madcow.

          You can think of many more I am sure.

    • It also has a real lot to do with the fact that Liberals have tiny under developed amgydala (a part of the brain) and it is easily over stimulated/over loaded.

      Hijacking a Liberal’s amygdala is quite easy, once you learn how to do it. The fact that they get more pissed faster these days is a testatment at how much better we are getting at stimulating them and creating a hijack.

      • Fight or flight reflex – some interesting new research out on this I have heard.

        Once you stimulate the lizard brain, the use of higher level resources is limited.

        Thats when you aren’t going to convince them on a rational basis, only stimulate more fight or flight.

  11. This is what MN is trying to pull since they got defeated last year – House File 1944 and Senate File 1915, politically motivated measures aimed at suppressing political speech by membership organizations such as the NRA, continue to move quickly through the Minnesota legislature. These flawed and dangerous bills pose a grave risk to freedom of speech in Minnesota and overreach to impose excessive regulatory burdens on political interests. HF 1944 and SF 1915 would require organizations like the NRA, who engage in political speech, to disclose the names of many of their donors, including those who pay membership dues. This legislation would re-brand what is now recognized as free speech as “elections speech,” thereby subjecting it to strict and onerous regulations – regulations that would tell organizations what they can and cannot say depending on the time of year. This legislation would even go so far as to inhibit the NRA’s ability to provide candidate information at critical times before an election. This legislation is simply an attempt by state politicians to control and discourage any criticism of them and their records.

  12. JR you really do have serious reading comprehension issues.

    You continue to miss my point, put words in my mouth and distort what I am saying.

    I can tell when I am talking into an empty can though, so do proceed.

    Your position is like a little kid whining, “But Dad , he did it first! He made me do it because he is so mean!”

    • Attack the person when you can’t attack the argument. You insinuated that there wasn’t a difference and JR highlighted the difference.

      It’s interesting that your responses aren’t staying in one thread where they can be read easily so anyone can make up their own minds. Are you doing that or is the software?

    • “I can tell when I am talking into an empty can though, so do proceed.”

      You ARE funny.

      You do sound familiar, though. I think you forgot to include #gunbullies when you addressed me in your post.

  13. Good cartoon. The grizzled NRA member tying Lady Liberty down and speeding off, in an attempt to save her from the hivemind of socialist progressivism, AR close at hand just in case. Just about spot on to my eye.

  14. Well written article Robert. Right on point.

    There is hate among the pro gun side…AND It’s about damn time! We were sheep for far too long.
    This is a fight for our rights and there are no holds barred.
    That said…Attacking each other is counter productive. Being an LEO i get all the “Cop hater” comments.
    The open carry folks argue with the CCW folks..etc.

    I think we are of one voice when it comes to our constitutional rights. I guess that is what is truly important.

    • I think we are of one voice when it comes to our constitutional rights. I guess that is what is truly important.

      THAT’s the thought that counts.

  15. It really boils down to can you control your emotions. For almost all antis, the answer is not in the slightest. For our pro side, we do a better job, but could be way better as well.

    For the antis – emotion rules them. They have little to no control. They don’t like guns so they lash out at anyone that would not hold the same view. It is all emotion, no linear thought, and there are trending more so that way so expect it to only get more vicious and perhaps physical if they boil over.

    For pros – perfectly honest, I sometimes cringe when I see “what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand” or “shall not be infringed”. Put yourself in the shoes of a neutral person who has not put much thought into the issue of gun rights. You need to explain WHY the founders put that amendment in, why it is still important today. It’s easy to find government abuse of power today. Let’s use it to show why the right shall not be infringed. Same thing with the this is what happens to a disarmed population posted on this very site. I grow as frustrated as anyone, but this is about winning hearts and minds. Protection and safety are very personal, close to heart issues. Marrying the logic of using the most effective tool to that desire for protection does both.

    • Yet, some of us do type shall not be infringed and go on to explain why. Even with the explanation, some still cringe at that. Hmm… 😉

      Some of us are no longer convinced that this is a “win the hearts and minds” situation and that is the disagreement, IMHO.

      • There are some hearts and minds to be won. Some of us are heart and mind winners and enjoy working with the undecideds in the middle who aren’t up for the fight just to fight.

        Some of us would rather engage and go after the really bad sort who like to fight for the sake of fighting or who truly are in the business of robbing us of our rights.

        I enjoy the jousting and the confrontation and love a good debate. It engages the mind and builds confidence in and solidifies one’s position.

        Not everyone likes to do the same thing … for me – once you’ve decided to do something you might as well do it well, practice at it .once you get it to where you think it’s solid – share it with a friend who’d like to have some fun, too.

        • Right. As I’ve posted in other comments, it’s important to have those who desire to joust and convince others. Anymore, I don’t perceive much, if any, gain from engaging the minds (forget the heart — if they’re ruled mostly by emotion then they’ll fall to the liberal side again and again) of those who are truly uninformed. The vast majority out there, IMHO, maintain willful ignorance; including the “I support the 2A but” individuals. Rarely, from the USA, do I encounter the honestly ignorant (outside the USA is another matter and I do spend time informing them).

          Admittedly, I could be wrong. However, I don’t believe that the “hearts and minds” approach will yield a powerful enough result to turn back our government in time. My focus is shall not be infringed and why that is so important to a free people. It’s good that we have others who choose to engage in other ways… I’m not one of them.

          Thank you, Mina, and many others for the patient work that you carry out for the cause of Liberty. I in no way intend to diminish or to discourage your efforts.

  16. The 2nd Amendment and the 1st Amendment have a symbiotic relationship. Defending one has to be done with an expression of the other, and thus, the loss of one will quickly result in the loss of another.

    I’m not referring to a legitimate legal loss (in the form of the repeal of one of these amendments) either, as much as a sufficient suppression. Make no mistake, they are linked in a way that no other two amendments are.

    • Speaking of which, I saw another article somewhere just today about the proposed “Shield Law” that will attempt to define [bolt action, hunting and sporting] journalists and withhold 1st Amendment protection from all other [assault, high capacity] writers.

      So they’re now both under attack. Again. Still.

    • Wow. Constructive remarks you are making. This from the guy claiming that we are being too hateful to the anti-gunners.

      My head spins at the hypocrisy…let’s recap.

      First: You claimed we are no better than the anti’s when we also engage in angry-speak.

      Second: I pointed out that such moral equivalence does not exist. That’s my observation. You are free to disagree with that and engage me in intellectual conversation.

      Third: You said I missed your point by not agreeing ‘lunatic nut-job’ speak was equal to their lunatic nut job speak.

      Fourth: I stated that I did not miss that point; I disagree with it and think it is some part of why the anti’s gain traction when and where they do.

      Fifth: You insulting my reading comprehension (for not agreeing with you) and called me an “empty can.”

      Sixth: Another dude agreed with my point.

      Seventh: You insult HIS intelligence….for not agreeing with you.

      Now, I know you can see the problem here. Here’s what I interpret as being the rules according to Paul”

      Rule 1: It’s wrong for us to use hateful, angry or insulting speech to the anti-gunners. It makes us look like lunatic nut jobs.

      Rule 2: It’s okay for Paul to use hateful, angry or insulting speech to folks that disagree with Rule 1.

      Got it.

      Are you SURE you are not a far-left Progressive? Because your debate tactics (reduction to name calling and insults in the face of disagreement) is consistently similar (cf any thread on Open Carry).

      I’ve said my bit to you, sir. Insult me or not, you may have the last word. But, I do sincerely obvserve that your “rules” (as I have summarized them) as practiced by you do more to harm our image than any “lunatic nut job” calling a rabid Progressive exactly what they are…there are several posts above about the fracturing of the gun rights community, and you remain one of the most divisive people on this particular forum.

      Good Day.

      • No JR; you are right on; Paul T.M and I got into it over the OC and CC last week; he was attacking OC people with hateful and derogatory speech; I countered by using his language against him. That shut him down.

        He uses the tactics of a person following Alinsky’s “the rules for radicals”; mostly against pro gun people. I would not be surprised if in the end he is at heart a Liberal/progressive gun grabber that is cruising pro-gun sites doing his best to sow dissention among those that support the second amendment.

        I also have noticed that he posts further down the thread when responding to people he has a hard time overwhelming with his Alinsky-est tactics like he did with Mina.

  17. I’ve had many pro vs anti discussions and found that once you get the logic out and punch past the emotional “guns are bad” point the anti usually resorts to name calling and or cursing. On one occasion i got up and walked away while the person was ranting on and on. When I ask if there is any guarantee that the “criminals” wont get guns just like they shouldn’t be able to get illegal drugs. They drop down to schoolyard antics.

    • Because the Liberal left has one and one play: You are a nasty , worthless human being because of your views. Period.

    • Not just the anti’s resort to name calling and insults.

      Some of the posts above about ‘fractures’ in the gun rights groups are spot on. Some of these “wars” get downright ugly.

      There seems to be a generic “disagree with me and I’ll call you a poopy head” style of ‘debate’ in our culture. Can’t say the anti’s have monopoly on it.

      • I have a theory that just being Liberal is not what makes people behave like this. All they need to be is more leftist than yourself.

        For example I am almost an anarchist. Take that for what you will but it’s pretty far right. I have good luck with the techniques and strategies recommended to hijack leftist’s amygdalas using them against people who are not technically “leftiest” but are just a bit more left than myself.

        Think of the political ideology as a spectrum: a line from infinity to the left to infinity on the right. Right = zero Government and Left = total Government control Fasism, Nazism, Communism, etc. The middle of the line -0- is “neutral”. Democrats left of neutral and Republicans right of neutral. Everyone falls somewhere on the line, ideologically.

        What does it all mean? I dunno, maybe the farthest right shall inherit the earth?

  18. When anti gunners ferocity is exposed demonstrating their error in logic, and repeating the words enough forges from a hope to a belief, it transforms into a religion.

    Fortunately the same media they use is employed against them. And judges are realizing that any infringement on 2A, lays the ground work for deconstructing the remaining rights

  19. Andrew Breitbart confronts angry protestors with signs that say “STOP THE HATE!!”

    Watch as he does nothing wrong, just calmly asks questions and then gives them the room to expose themselves for the haters they are.


    • Interesting. Except for the old woman at the end, whose explanation was simplicity itself, not a single protester offered up even a feeble defense of the statements scrawled on their signs. I don’t know who the dude is in this video, but I like his gusto.

      • He is now dead and most likely killed because of what a huge threat he was to the Left’s Agenda. But that’s a whole ‘nother story and frankly a lot less useful to us than understanding his techniques and strategies.

        Andrew Breitbart. is his legacy.
        Ben Shapiro at is someone who mentored under Andrew and is well worth following.

  20. I keep asking my liberal friends (technically I am a liberal who owns guns) have dead baby pictures ever worked for the anti abortion protesters? Why would you think dead child pictures and insults work for for the anti gun lobby? When the wild west shootouts font happen, what then? They only let the boy cry wolf a few times. Then he get eaten. Or, maybe the sheep my Mother Goose is rusty.

    Anyway, dont respond with ad hominem attacks, insults, or yelling. Politely calmly respond with facts. You know, like how Willy Wonka responded to Veruca Salt. You are not trying to convince Shannon Watts or Bloomerg’s minions. You going for the independent neutral observer. Dont be the first one to stomp your foot. You wont get the chocolate. First one to stomp the foot loses.

    • One correction, in my opinion.

      We don’t need to go after Watts and Bloomberg, but their “minions” are accessible.

      I may be overly naive, but I firmly believe that MOST of the rank and file members of MDA type groups are following the info as it has been presented to them. They believe the stats, the stories, the global picture as it has been painted.

      But, why are their turn-outs so small? For example, I don’t think most “Moms” really want to go ‘storm Staples’ and stuff like that. They just want their children safe.

      So maybe I misinterpreted what you meant by “minions,” but either way, I think a LOT of anti-gun followers are reachable.

      And the best way to reach them is, I agree, calm discussion and TAKE THEM TO THE RANGE. Convince them gun safety is something their children can (and should) learn. That sort of positive action will mean more to actual mothers (of any political stripe) than holding a sign begging a store to not allow guns, when those Moms have never seen a gun in that store to begin with.

      • For example, I don’t think most “Moms” really want to go ‘storm Staples’ and stuff like that. They just want their children safe.

        That is exactly right. And when someone like me talks to them about how I decided, for example, to protect my kids by learning about guns that gets their attention in a good way. I have personally gotten a bunch of moms on board and taught them about guns and encouraged them to get started. Quite a few are now really into it! But this requires a one on one, personal and synchronous conversation that usually happens face to face. Therefore: Neighbors, family, friends, friends of friends.

        But most of the leftists we are dealing with “out there” are not the convince-able ones. They are the fist shakers, the foot stompers, the ones with huge anger issues that want to work them out on us. They are the Institutional Lefts who want to wipe us off the face of the earth.

        Two crews, two sets of tactics.

        • I think you got it exactly right. The individual approach is what will win. This site is not an individual – it’s a group of individuals, each unique and with a different style of living, but with a common enjoyment of guns and a belief that the right highlighted in the BOR should not be withheld or limited.

          What works for you in your situation may not work for me, and vice versa. That diversity is what is defeating the antis. They cannot fathom anyone having personal likes and beliefs other than theirs. They are captives of their group, and cannot tolerate dissension within their ranks. To dissent from or even question the leaders’ thoughts means banishment. Perhaps that’s why MDA and MAIG are losing members.

          Just my opinions. Take ’em or leave ’em.

  21. I dunno about the RI Senator one. I really think that was more ‘the nut job on the radio’ response than particularly going after someone who protects the 2nd amendment.

    If you look at that guys other stuff, it’s a lot of ‘fringe’ type stuff. He could have a history of being antagonistic with other stuff.

    Still dumb of the guy to respond like that, along with his photographer.

  22. Look at the anti-gun rally guy on the left of the screen at 1:32 into the video

    He was not the only one. The parasite caller had to take the paper out the hands of a number of people, at a women at the very end also refused to hand it over.

    This is a crowd that showed up for an anti-gun rally, and you have two people interested enough in the other side to refuse to buckle into pressure and not read what the other side had to say.

    That’s what really rankles the anti-gun side, they have to rely upon ignorance of people, and they understand this. The more people actually become familiar with firearms, the far less likely they are to support gun control.

  23. Funny thing is Mina would have been standing there just trying to out-shrill the protesters thinking this to be a bold demonstration of courage.

    All noise, nothing more.

    That is all keyboard commandos on either side have to offer.

  24. I’m sorry I watched the video. I was having a great morning.

    Mina, great point using Alinskys rules against them!

  25. The shrill voices represented in this comment stream do not care about persuasion, they just enjoy yelling at their opponents. They have no concern about those “listening n” who can be persuaded. They evidence an inability to understand these realities.

    • How do you “persuade” a libtard? A person who is committed to undermining the Constitution? I dont think it can be done. These people are true believers, and have no interest in listening to reasonable argument. They must be overwhelmed and destroyed, as they are trying to do, or they will overwhelm and destroy. The tactics of the enemy must be turned against them at a much higher level. This fight is for the Bill of Rights.

    • Speaking as one of those people who was swayed by TTAG (including its comments) to embrace the right outlined second amendment and reject the FUD I had been fed during my recent adventure at college and before that public school, you could not be farther from the truth. Do your self a favor and quit being the comment contrarian. Because, in reality, you’re the one making us look bad.

  26. Did Howe take Philadelphia? Or did Philadelphia take Howe?
    I’m sure that pertains to the conversation somehow.

  27. Can we please stop calling it “gun control” and call it what it is “firearm confiscation”? It is not about “reasonable legislation” it is about “incremental slavery”. It is not about “saving the children” it is about “mass murder” children included. These intellectual misfits made their bed, with their anti-firearm agenda; let’s call a spade a spade then make them sleep in it. Damn I am tired of this political correct BS.

  28. It’s not that the antis get off on their anger. They really get off on it. Their “you’re too stupid to understand what’s good for you” self-righteous fury creates a positive feedback loop. They’re right, so they’re angry; they’re angry, so they’re right. Even better, it’s all for the children.

    Which reinforces my point that the low intelligent constituents that make up the gun grabbers and the Democratic party at large just need something on which to focus their raw emotions.

    • That makes me wonder how many anti gunners are or were also pro choice. Or “save the planet/ecosystem/trees/lemmings/etc.”

      • All of them. This is not to say that I don’t hold those same positions (disclaimer: I do but for well thought out considered reasons which I don’t want to get into here) but anti gunners all believe in :

        1. the war against women is a thing
        2. feminism is good
        3. climate change is real / must be addressed
        4. abortion should be widely available at all times to everyone for any reason
        5. people who don’t vaccinate their kids are flat-earthers
        6. homosexuality/gay is on par with traditional family structure
        7. etc

        You name the meme of the day and they believe in it. Hook line and sinker. “Progressive” is a Brand these days like Abercrombie … you get the whole package or nothing. It’s actually brilliant what they are doing, when you study it. This is why Obama for Action was formed, to get the brand solidified.

      • … I hold the same positions as Liberals on !some! topics.

        Sorry, I reread my comment and it kind of sounded like I agreed with them on everything for the same reasons they believe. No, not all and I have my own reasons for the areas of overlap.

  29. Gungrabbers don’t hate guns. They fear us.

    We are not part of the hive, and they hate that. They are weak and we’re strong. They hate that. We’re smarter than they are, and they hate that. They hate our independence, they hate our freedom and they hate that we can defend ourselves and aren’t depended on the benevolent state.

    Fear shuts down the brain. What’s left after the fear takes over is a slavish devotion to the Leland Yee’s of the world. The gungrabbers were so busy hating us that they couldn’t see the virus in their own community. They still can’t.

    • They really, really hate your big brass balls. 😀

      The fight really is about wiping anything/anyone threatening/scary off the face of the earth. Men are targets, especially manly men who aren’t scared to say what’s what and stand up for their principles.

      You guys are a huge threat. That’s why I hang out here. Front row seat in the fight for freedom, right here. The gun blog and the manosphere – the only two groups left.

  30. The message is “guns are antithetical to America and Liberty”.

    Don’t ask me how; even the most cursory examination of the facts will prove otherwise.

    But please don’t think when mindless reaction is so much easier.

  31. Ralph gets all five and the Powerball!!!

    It’s not the Ghost Guns. It’s not the Shoulder Thing That Goes Up.
    It’s not the guns at all, it’s us.

    They hate us, because we get their legislation stopped.
    They want our guns melted, but they also want us in jail.

    I don’t see the reason for treating such people with kid gloves.

    • It’s one thing to treat them with “kid gloves”, which we shouldn’t, and implying they’re retarded. Which IS retarded.

  32. Excellent work as always Mr. Farago.

    In consideration of the idea that — knowingly or not — those alive today are an integral part of what historians in some non-existent future may or may not choose to write about; and
    with a Mind toward wordsmithing a statement that might possibly be entered as a minor footnote in some otherwise wholly insignificant historical reference:
    For the Record, statement as follows:
    “In brief response to the activities of those who knowingly indicate themselves to be among the burgeoning hordes of Anti-American; Anti-Constitutional Republic; Anti-‘Rights’; Anti-RKBA; Immoral; Illiberal, Digressive Statists — “Kiss My Buttstock”.”

  33. Georgia better be wary. According to President Jimmy Carter, his grandson has the numbers (in the polls) to be the next Governor of the State of Georgia. Woe to Georgia if he’s anything like the rest of the Democratic party.

    • Please do feel free to get back to us when you actually know something about the guy. Jimmy Carter was no particular enemy of the 2A.

      Unless you’ve got something I don’t know about. Which I doubt. Were you even of the Age of Wisdom when Carter was president?

      • I am old enough to remember how ineffective he was with the Iran hostage situation. I also remember he didn’t seem to do much to HARM the country. I will say I was young enough though that my source(s) at the time was only news broadcasts on radio and TV.

        IF you notice, I was saying that if President Carter’s grandson is so entrenched in the Democratic party as to tow/follow the party line on everything, Georgia may have a problem. I never stated what I thought President Carter’s stance was then, or is now, on the 2A.

      • I know he supports Obama. That is all anyone needs to know about the genteel jerk. You sure are a condescending know it all. Or maybe a provocative know nothing. Either way you should



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here