Previous Post
Next Post

After praising Social Studies teacher Megan Silberberger [above] for intervening in the recent Marysville Pilchuck High School shooting, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America’s Facebook page wonders “When will Congress stand up to the gun lobby so that teachers and students don’t have to stand up to gunmen?” Because if Congress stands up to the “gun lobby” (i.e. pro-gun advocates representing pro-gun Americans) and passes some unspecified gun control law (or twenty) school shooters will no longer attack people in schools. How about . . .

a Gun Free School Zone Act! Oh wait. Been there done that. Background checks? The Marysville shooter was too young to buy a gun. Darn! There must be some law or laws that would have stopped the gunmen from killing his compatriots. Some law or group of laws that would stop all these senseless slaughters in our schools. No. No there isn’t. Try telling that to MDA and their supporters, though.

Marie Saunders Batten How sick of a culture have we become? This story should never have had to be lived…told…or anyone have died for. Had it not been for the grip the NRA has on our cowards in Congress, it wouldnt have.

How? How would an “NRA-free” Congress have prevented this killing – or other similar attacks – with a gun control law (or twenty)? Again, what gun control law has stopped a spree killer? What law could? Both common sense and experience tells us that laws against criminal behavior do not eliminate that behavior. Just as laws against illegal items (e.g. meth) do not prevent them from being bought, sold, possessed and used.

Maria Lowry I was a teacher for 28 years. My job was not to carry a gun. It was to teach children. The community owes it to the children and the teachers to keep them safe. Pass some logical gun laws.

As The Princess Bride‘s Inigo Montoya would say “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.” But since Ms. Lowry asked (well almost), here’s a logical gun law: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Stop infringing on parents’, administrators’ and teachers’ right to keep and bear arms. Give defensive firearms training to those who are willing. Combine that with proactive mental health care in schools and throughout the “community” and I’m betting you’d have a far better plan to keep school children safe from spree killers than limiting Americans’ easy access to firearms.

Yes, I said it. Easy access. Anyway, it’s that disconnect – between pie-in-the-sky self-righteous anti-gun faith in gun control laws and the grim reality of what we need to do to remove dangerous people from society and prepare for the ones we miss – that’s so damn idiotic. You have to be something of a dolt not see that direct intervention, hopefully psychological but ultimately ballistic, is the only “answer” to the question “what do we do about spree killers?”

What’s even stupiderer: the MDA’s touchy-feely followers can’t see where their anti-gun agitprop leads. Unless, of course, they can . . .

John Derryman Children are in school to learn not to be targets for gun carrying yobs, when are going to stop selling guns to people when we have police and the army all armed.

Once again, a commentator under an MDA post “gets it.” Shannon Watts’ mob wants to disarm civilians. That’s their plan to protect children, abused women and shoppers threatened by open carriers shopping for groceries. That’s what MDA is selling. That’s their endgame. Not “responsible gun ownership.” Civilian disarmament. Anyone who can’t see that is either ignorant, willfully ignorant or intellectually challenged. Take your pick.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. It is WRONGFUL not just wrong for a n y o n e to say that they can protect anyone on the individual level, not the gov’t, not LEO, not your school, not your mom. God Bless the teacher who did the job, but it would still be wrong for her to hold-out to anyone any form of promise that she would/could.

    No one has even achieved that, even for those in prison.

    Someone once told me “everyone here wants to kill you. Don’t worry about me being wrong about that, because, if I am, I will kill you” we all said ‘thanks Gunny’ and we all were able to come home and tell that to someone else.

  2. I have an important question: why do we even play nice with gun grabbers? They don’t like us and insist that we give up our rights. We wouldn’t play nice with an armed thug who insists that we give up our property, bodies, or life. We would respond with force. Why do gun grabbers get a pass for demanding that we give up something against our will?

    Note: any justification for giving up our rights is irrelevant.

    • Freedom of speech. This is part of the price we pay. Sucks, but if there’s a good way around this, besides ensuring that saner voices are also heard, I don’t know what it is. Not a justification of taking the second amendment rights away, but they get to argue for that.

      If they physically try to take guns away, different ball game of course.

      • PhilWilson,

        I am a huge proponent of Free Speech. The trouble that I am having is seeing how the “speech” of gun grabbers is anything other than conspiracy to infringe our rights. Their baseless insults also violate libel and slander laws.

        Look at it this way. Suppose that I despise Jane Doe and begin publicly demanding that someone forcibly take away her umbrella against her will. Is that protected speech? I think not.

        • Actually, I’m pretty sure that it is. As long as you don’t issue specific instructions that someone then follows to commit a crime against her, you can say whatever you want about her umbrella unworthiness.

        • Because it reflects poorly on us if we stoop to their level, throwing small tantrums, hurling vicious insults, and calling for the deaths of opponents. More than anything else, the battle for our gun rights is a culture war, and unfortunately, the media is overwhelmingly sympathetic to the anti-gun cause. If we resort to the same tactics they use, it would be all over the evening news, while them doing the same thing is quietly ignored.

          It’s frustrating, and it’s slow, but I’ve met a surprising number of people who were once low information voters or fence sitters, but the insanity of people like Piers Morgan actually made them re-examine their stance, and they are now strongly pro-gun. And more than anything else, we can’t stoop to their level because there’s no reason to. They have to rely on fear, hatred, and insults to harm the opposition because they have nothing else, while we can smile through their tirades, and then calmly eviscerate them with hard data and undeniable logic.

          You can’t persuade an anti who pursues their cause with a blind fervor that most doomsday preachers would find disturbing, but others who witness the discussion (whether that discussion takes place in a coffee shop, on a message board, or on the street) may very well be persuaded.

        • Has anyone ever considered libel/slander lawsuits against these empty barrels? Bloomberg could burn his $50 million pretty quickly on a couple hundred defense lawyers.

      • The only way to counter the anti gun left is to mentor young shooters, let them know that the shooting sports are fun. That’s right I said it, Guns are fun! The shooting sports take skill, practice, and commitment. Be a mentor to the next generation of shooter. I remember a time when every kid had a BB gun and then graduated to a .22. We didn’t grow up demented!

        • You are absolutely right about that! I started with a slingshot, moved to a BB gun, .410, .22 and 20 gauge, then 12 gauge, etc. Sane and committed to use firearms safely and teach my children the very same principles I learned! MDA and all the other anti-gun crazies suffer from delusion. They think that there will be a day when there will be no guns and that they will have some part in that. They fail to see that there will always be gun, weapons, etc., and if enough laws are passed against guns, the only people holding them will be criminals (including those who govern by force.)

    • Because every right comes with responsibilities and no right is absolute. Not even RKBA. (Try waving a gun around in someone’s face and see how far that right to keep and bear arms gets you.)

      In a civilized society, delineating the outer ambits of those rights and their overlaps with each other and with others’ rights is part of the political process and the judicial process. None of that can take place without yet another right, the right to free speech; the cytoplasm of democracy, if you will.

      Besides, what’s the alternative? Strip them of their right to free speech, under threat of government force? That would make us just as bad as they are.

    • I am one of about 3 people on TTAG that has defended James Yeager’s “start killing people” comment that resulted in his loss of carry permit. Other POTG use that instance to describe what it is to go “full Yeager”. I loved it when he said that and I hated it when he apologized. Taken in context, exactly as he delivered it, his comment was 100% in line with the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Too many people on our side are pussies. That should answer your question.

  3. Are their followers really that naive? They really do believe “just one more law” could have stopped this, Newtown, or any other school shooting for that matter. This little imbecile broke 2 laws (at least) just walking on to the schools property; 3 if you include conspiracy to commit murder. Would someone from MDA (I know you guys read this site) please, PLEASE, explain how any of your proposed gunsense laws would have changed the outcome of this shooting or even Newtown? I won’t hold my breath waiting on a response that’s in touch with reality.

    • Just as it takes two to tango, it takes two (or more) to conspire, so no conspiracy charge. However, there are indeed a slew of charges that could have been filed. My best guess, not knowing anything about the criminal code, charges would include theft (gun and ammo) possession of a firearm by a minor, possession of handgun ammo by a minor, violation of GFSZA, attempted murder (X5), murder (X2), simple assault (X5), assault with a deadly weapon (X5), and battery (X5). So that’s 26 charges, and I am sure that any “good” prosecutor could think up a few more.

    • Well see it’s quite simple: Once guns are made illegal, and the purple unicorn farts – all the guns will turn into Roses… and then we can live in peace and harmony, in the cold November rain.

  4. I plan to start an organization to rally congress to pass laws that will end mass murder. Dudes against mass murder. D.U.M.M. Cant see why that wont work… common sense for the children and all.

  5. I think that easy access is fine, because we’re approaching the opposite end of the spectrum. If pro-gunners continue to rant and rave that “no law would prevent” a scenario, lawmakers will go, “Ok. Then no guns.” Followed by 500 “yeas” and the sound of utter defeat. That’s what will happen if the laws of today aren’t repealed.

    • And here is the thing-it still would not matter in terms of reducing gun crime, as only the most law abiding would turn them in. There would be those that stand up and attempt to fight against the powers that be, while those who wipe their a$$es with the law would disobey, criminals are criminals because the laws mean jack $hit to them. Banning guns in countries with no constitutional rights to firearms has not stopped crimes with guns, why would it be any different here? The only thing an asinine legislative move as such would cause is the mass creation of new sheep, after the neutering of the non-governmental sheepdogs, leaving them ripe for the taking by the wolves who obey no laws.

      • Crimes with guns, crimes with knifes, crimes with hatchets, crimes with stones, crimes with bats, crimes with machetes, crimes with… Someone gotta make a sign and send it to them MDAs, a sign that reads, “It’s not the guns, STUP|D!”

    • MichaelB, the “followed by” is actually the sound of 30 million firearms going off, after which those 500 “yeas” will not be uttered. THAT is total defeat. Access to firearms is either “easy”, or it is “infringed”. One of those is unconstitutional, and 500 “yeas” will not change that, I suspect a constitutional amendment will not either, but an honorable attempt would be to try it. Pretending to have gun-grabbing authority otherwise is called “tyranny”, and plenty of people in this country know how to deal with that. The nitwit detail, of which you seem to be an advocate, has seen its zenith.

    • Even Diane “Mr. and Mrs. America, Turn them all in!” Feinstein knows that she can’t do that. If they tried, they’d all lose their jobs. And even if they were successful, no law trumps 100 million gun owners.

  6. By the way I cannot decide if the teacher who intervened is courageous or insane. An unarmed person has almost no chance whatsoever of prevailing over an armed and determined attacker.

    Unless the layout of the location of the attack enabled the teacher to walk within a few feet of the attacker without the attacker seeing her, it doesn’t seem like a wise move to me.

    • The local sheriff concluded a few days ago that the teacher did not actually touch the kid. So I am not sure how much intervention occurred. it’s possible she came towards him and since he had already shot the people he was intending to, he shot himself.

      • The thee are not mutually exclusive. Extreme courage, if stripped of it’s nobleness, closely resembles aspects of mental illness, and even the insanely courageous can die. I’m sure there are at least a few others who acted with courage similar to Audie Murphy or Sgt. York, who didn’t have the fortune of surviving themselves or having those they saved witness their acts.

    • @ Uncomon_sense and @ Marcus
      Insane, noble or courageous. Meaningless words in a situation where death is. I don’t like this lady any more than any of you and I think she’s hamming it up. But regardless, if you’re unarmed and the SHTF and you jump in to help someone… you aren’t doing it for glory. You’re doing it because it’s the right thing to do. That’s what WE do. Hell, if you die then maybe it was God’s plan. And maybe you made a difference in someone else’s life. Personally, I’d like a pistol at my side but shit doesn’t always work out that way.

  7. An inspired post, Robert! The Mom’s envision a rainbow-bridge world filled with fuzzy bunnies, gamboling puppies, and perpetual safety—if we can just get rid of all those scary and awful guns. The problem is that on this side of the rainbow bridge ISIS is chopping off heads and even the most incompetent spree killers know they can do great harm in the corridors of defenseless schools. What the Moms really find unpalatable is the very real possibility that an armed teacher will successfully defend her kids and her school, thereby preventing a massacre. That said, I’ll agree with the Moms that Megan Silberberger is a genuine hero. It’s good to know there are still people like her in our schools.

  8. I wish the NRA were half as powerful as the anti-folks make them out to be… We’d never have to worry about gun control.

    • If the NRA did half of what the disarmament loons claim, then they’d also give all of us free guns. Wouldn’t that be something?

      • That’d be awesome. Closest they come, which isn’t too bad, are firearms raffles through their hundreds of Friends of the NRA fundraising dinners annually. You probably already know about those, but some other reader might not.

        It’s a great way to support NRA work which has nothing to do with political activities, just training, safety and education, and perhaps win a some really nice firearms.

    • I always find it funny how the anti’s throw the NRA around as the all powerful boogie man controlling congress. Don’t they realize that half of this country are law abiding citizens who own gun AND we vote?
      The NRA isn’t anything compared to all of us.

  9. The only way for a “Gun Free Zone” to be as safe as anywhere else — which, YES, implies that you are LESS SAFE in a “gun free zone” now — is to actually enforce the gun free zone. That means limited entrances to the GFZ with actual security at all of them, to include metal detectors and such a la airport screening or most Federal building screening, and armed and trained security personnel to forcefully stop a crazy person who would otherwise just run right through the checkpoint were that sort of force not protecting/enforcing it.

    • There are some inner city schools that are just as you describe, and include metal detectors and armed cops at the doors. Most places will not/cannot pay for the cost.

      • Right. In which case a sign or law that disarms the good people who follow signs and laws but doesn’t affect or, often, actually incentivizes the criminals is counterproductive. Without physical enforcement a “gun free zone” is more dangerous, not less, and can truly and legitimately be referred to as a “defenseless victim zone,” which is how it’s viewed by criminals.

    • In that case, the spree shooters would just take aim at all of the people lined up at the security checkpoint. Or they’ll do it at a mall or a festival or the beach or any of the other infinite number of places which cannot all be secured simultaneously. Or the spree killer will be one of the guards themselves, just like Afghan Army killers on our bases over there. Or they’ll use a weapon like a vehicle or fire that they can employ without obstruction.

      As long as some people are willing to trade their life for a few minutes of mayhem, you’ll always have the threat of spree killers. The best we can do is to try to identify the flat out crazies in advance (unlikely) and minimize the damage they wreak by meeting it with armed resistance everywhere every time.

  10. There is a simple solution to MDA’s question about what to do. Make MDA accountable for their actions!

    The responsibility for all these deaths rests with the voters that are trying to dis-arm the VICTIMS.

    If someone introduces themselves as a member of that group they are immediately ignored by me and have zero chance at dialog. I do not to hear them whine anymore!

    • It’s true. In 99.5% of the cases the laws pushed by these groups serve only to disarm the victims. The perpetrators of the crimes get their firearms extra-legally anyway and none of the proposed legislation would do a darn thing to change that.

      • What a plan that brings up! Let’s get together to make stealing firearms illegal! That’d work, right?

  11. Not having been to their web site, I have two questions: (1) what “common sense” gun laws do these Mothers actually propose or endorse, and (2) why do they think their proposals (if any) will reduce “gun violence”? It seems to me that they gloss over these subjects. However, by their actions, it would appear that they are against open carrying, against concealed carry, against “assault weapons” and pretty much against all guns except hunting rifles and shotguns, because, of course, “we support the Second Amendment but….”

    • I’m sure they endorse ALL common sense gun laws, and how that would reduce gun crimes is obvious. You mean you want something specific? Don’t be such a racist.

  12. She seems to think the people doing this kind of stuff actually obtain their firearms legally…and she seems to forget about the 300+ million firearms already in existence in the US.

    Yeah, “standing up to the gun lobby” is going to change the fact that bad guys can get guns, huh?

    These people should focus on solutions that actually relate to reality…

    The fact is, the majority of these stupid “Mom’s” live in a ridiculously sheltered world, that has no basis in reality.

  13. Gotta be 21 to possess a handgun. Broken
    Gotta be 21 to possess handgun ammo. Broken
    Can’t be within 1000 ft of a school with a weapon. Broken
    Can’t murder someone. Broken
    Can’t discharge a firearm inside the city limits. Broken
    Can’t bring a firearm to school. Broken

    If there were just 1 more law in place, maybe then we will end the carnage.

  14. “Gun carrying yobs”? Somebody is visiting MDA from across the pond. Yobs are a UK phenomenon, not American.

    • Oh I frequently see UK/Australian folks jump into MDA discussions with their holier-than-thou “we banned guns and live in utopia” BS. Really strokes the egos of the MDA crowd, you know, if you ignore all those other statistics.

  15. Apparently they are also now lying about the Giffords shooting.

    “…something you may not know is that for 15 minutes before the gunman fired into a crowd and at a member of Congress, he openly carried his weapons through the aisles of a grocery store for all to see. This is behavior that Kroger considers acceptable inside its stores.”

    I don’t recall that at all from the reports about the incident. Did I miss something?

  16. Social Experiment:
    How about we take an island and fill it with Liberals and Progressives with all their freedom hating gun loathing statist glory. Make sure to include those type of lawmakers as well. Make sure they open their borders to anyone who would they view as a potential voter and grant them executive amnesty. Have schools that teach their kids that mediocrity is the norm and everyone is entitled to everything given to them. Let them establish all the anti gun laws, stupid taxes, and whatever silly social program nonsense they want to come up with funded by their tax dollars. Let’s see how long they survive without being rampant on crime, corruption, poverty, and general civil unrest.

  17. Notice MDA is strangely quiet about the two cops that were killed in CA. You would think those ghouls couldn’t wait to dance in the blood of the dead cops.

    I suspect, however, the reason MDA isn’t all over the dead cops is due to the illegal alien aspect of the suspect and the fact the suspect was twice deported. I think the suspect was deported due to committing crimes and getting caught, but, could be wrong.

  18. I almost forgot about the Goebbels twitter MDA snafu, but at this point, its silly for expecting anything but DERPPPPPPP to come out. I really like the purple unicorn farts comparison above, how do you un-invent technology that is over 100 years old and is so incredibly common place. Not to mention anyone with mechanical skills just making it…

    One of those situations where the phrase “I dont agree with your opinion (because you and it are monumentally stupid), but I will defend your right to have it with my life.”

  19. MDA’s true philosophy is the same used in the “War on Drugs”…. There’s no such thing as drug use, only drug abuse. For MDA, there is no such thing as responsible gun ownership, just gun nuts. To MDA and the rest of the gun-control crowd, if you own a gun, you’re committing a crime for which their is simply no prohibiting law, yet. That is their endgame, whether officially stated or not.

  20. Maria Lowry I was a teacher for 28 years. My job was not to carry a gun. It was to indoctrinate children and teach them to be illiterate by using the Look Say method..

  21. John Derryman Children are in school not to learn but to be targets for gun carrying yobs, so we can pass more gun control laws.

  22. Marie Saunders Batten How sick of a culture have we become? This story should never have had to be lived…told…or anyone have died for if teachers were actually armed. Had it not been for the grip the NRA does not have on our cowards in Congress, it wouldnt have. What should have been said.

  23. I think a lot of this gun law nonsense is a way for some liberals to make some sense of their past laws and policies on criminal behavior. Examples: When a kid shoots unarmed teenagers at a school it can’t be the kid’s fault, can it? Of course not, has to be blamed on the NRA or a gun (inanimate object). That frees the liberals from their responsibilities and from the blame of our permissive society. Where criminals are coddled and blame is passed from the responsible person to society, a gun or someone else. But never to the person actually responsible for the action. These kind of things are likely the long term result the passing the blame game. A murderer must have had a bad childhood. A drug dealer grew up in a bad neighborhood and really had no choice but to join a gang or sell drugs. The addict who robbed a convenience store was ill (rather than addicted of his own free will) and really had no choice. And so on. We reap what we sow but the framers of all of the blame passing laws don’t want the blame for what we are harvesting now. Has to be someone else’s fault, doesn’t it? So they work hard to find scapegoats. The NRA, the “gun lovers”, the firearm manufacturers, guns, drugs, and so on. Anything except their liberal laws.

  24. Let’s not be willfully ignorant here. They mean that if *no one* could own guns, then shitheads couldn’t steal them for use in crime. What they lack in logic they make up for in blind adherence to the dogma of their real masters.

    • You make a really good point, and I agree that the most pragmatic antis very likely believe that reducing the number of lawfully owned guns means fewer guns can be stolen and used unlawfully.

      That doesn’t apply, however, to many of MDA’s adherents, who direct such a vitriolic stream of blame and hatred toward the NRA (admittedly not a warm and cuddly organization) and ALL gun owners, whom they openly and viciously blame for every mass shooting. They actually believe that we are culpable in mass shootings and “the gun violence epidemic.”

      What I don’t understand is why such hatred is never, ever directed at people who drink responsibly — or toward distilleries or wine clubs — in response to urban winos or teenage DUI fatalities. These tragedies, despite vastly outnumbering deaths involving firearms, are never blamed on “the evil alcohol industry” or “wine-glass fondlers.”

      Why is that?

Comments are closed.