Previous Post
Next Post


I’m speechless.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • I have a 6 Plus and I hate it wish I had just a 6. I’ve had every new model except the I5 that I didn’t see enough difference between the 4S and any of the 5 series but the 6 does have a big atvantage over the 4S but the 6 plus is just to big. Oh you need something this big get a small tablet.

      • I had a Note before it was cool. Then I was like “WTF am I doing with this giant-ass phone?” and I went for an S4 mini. Downside, Youtube is smaller. Upside, I can actually put the phone in my pockets now.

  1. Bat guano is less crazy than CSGV.

    So much could be said, but I’ll just go with this: the Bill of Rights protect the people from the government, by placing explicit limits on the powers enumerated to the government. No amendment protects any person from any other person. So, even under the false premise that the second amendment is somehow dangerous to children, the question makes no sense whatsoever.

    • I thank you for your excellent articulation.

      I am thinking of a T-shirt: “Vous etes bat guano” Of course, it will take a lot of explanation, and nobody will understand it without said explanation, but it sure makes me laugh!

    • “No amendment protects any person from any other person. ”

      That would be your own job, and for your own children as well. You’d do well to have a gun!

      • Ladd Everitt is the looks like the kind of guy that should be accidentally petting puppies to death instead of hosting a Facebook “campaign”. I wouldn’t trust him with a gun.

  2. You know, there’s a place where you can’t own a gun and everything is a controlled environment. It’s called prison.
    I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. – Thomas Jefferson.

  3. Desperate rhetoric to rally their donors. I suspect their donations have been dropping and CSGV staff is looking at pay cuts.

    • Laugh…there’s probably a whole lotta truth in that statement. These disarmament yahoos understand self-defense when it comes to their own paychecks.

  4. Well, if you equate “the right to keep and bear arms” with “the right to murder people,” then I suppose that statement makes sense … I guess … in someone’s delusional mind …

    But I’m pretty sure the second amendment doesn’t secure any right to murder anyone. It protects the right to self-defense, which is a natural right that all humans have, regardless of any Constitution or other legal document.

    When you have anti-gun bigot politicians who make reckless statements such as “it’s legal to hunt humans” then the stupidity is reinforced.

  5. Agreed on the desperation. They are become increasingly unstable mentally every day. I fear for everyone’s safety since this uncontrolled emotional hatred and rage CSGV is bathing in has to find a physical outlet eventually.

  6. It’s not that scary that some people can be illogical, in denial, delusional, irrational and phobic about an inanimate object.

    What is terrifying is that there are enough “common citizens” that think like this to put these type of people in power over us all.

    The politicians are called our “representatives” for a reason.

  7. This should come as no surprise, expect the language and the boldness behind this to only accelerate. TPTB have no intention of allowing the coming generations to be (legal)gun owners

    • Too late for that. The fastest growing segments of new gun owners/shooters are young people and women. Real women still tend to have considerable influence on young people… 🙂 There’s a pretty good trend here.

      Our gun club does host a special event each week for the 4H kids indoors, boys and girls shooting their .22 rifles. But we don’t have any ‘ladies’ shoots’ here. Men, women and kids all shoot the same events, and we get more and more women out all the time. Hunting season is definitely that way too.

      I live in a county with fewer than 5,000 people, yet we do November “sight in days” for 60 people at a time. The range can’t accommodate any more, so we have to spread it over four days. 🙂

      The anti-gun people are not making much traction these days, outside of their friendly media, of course.

      • Mama, I love your optimism, but I think you are seriously misreading, misunderstanding the scope of the anti-gun agenda.

        • I think it is different in various places, but I’ve looked long and hard at the national averages. I have also found, in almost 70 years, that being an optimist is the healthiest option. Prepare for the worst, sure, but expect the best. We may be defeated at some point, of course, but I’m darn sure not going to defeat myself.

          Whatever works for you, of course. 🙂

  8. Clearly these folks have not read the entire Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If they had they would not be equating “protect the children” ™ with a slur of the Second Amendment. However the Second Amendment does offer a way to defend themselves. This CSGV seems they would be rather content to live in a Government run concentration camp where they would have just what the government wanted them to have.

    • Center To Support Government Violence unquestioningly hold the belief that the government has a total monopoly on the use of deadly force and that citizens have a duty to comply with every government edict, even if it violates the Constitution or the law. They are the criminally insane in the asylum of gun control groups.

  9. O.M.G. How did they post this not knowing just how insane it sounds and how completely logic-less it make them appear. Jiminy Christmas.

  10. I need protection from amendments 1, 3, and 4. We need to draft some legislation addressing this.

  11. Yeah I think they should get the Darwin award for that one. It don’t matter if there’s a specific amendment to protect my kids, and there doesn’t need to be one. *I* protect my kids.

    And in fact the 2nd amendment allows me to own and carry a gun specifically for protecting my kids.

    And the 1st amendment allows me to voice my support for my kids, and owning guns.

    Yeah, their logic is more broken than a football bat.

    • “And in fact the 2nd amendment allows me to own and carry a gun specifically for protecting my kids.

      And the 1st amendment allows me to voice my support for my kids, and owning guns.”

      They do not “allow” anything. They restrict government from denying these rights that exist naturally. It is very important to know and convey this.

  12. The CSGV are like idiot children that are wiping feces on a wall in the shape of a smiley face. They honestly think they’re doing good things, but it’s competent people that have to clean up the mess they make

  13. And while we’re at it, let’s have an amendment to protect our children from the First Amendment to save them from being bullied.

  14. Let’s take it a step further…
    By that logic, we should have an amendment protecting adults! Oh but wait, ADULTS doesn’t include our separate groups like gender, skin color, height, weight, and income level. But then we should hold constitutional conventions every month to alter the laws to our liking.

    Our we could, you know, protect us and our families BY OURSELVES.

  15. Every time I see someone post or hear someone say the “Nobody is trying to take your guns” line, I usually respond by asking if they have had a chance to peruse the comments under any csgv FB post. Of course that could also be said about any anti-gun FB page, but csgv has vitriolic derp down to a science.

  16. Well that did get my attention … I don’t recall ‘children’ mentioned specifically at all in the Constitution, but I have not read it in years. The 2nd amendment is self-protecting though. We have already eroded it with the individuals being denied their rights based on accusation of wrongdoing such as “Domestic Violence” . Felons are typically forbidden their rights to many of the protections of the Constitution. I wonder why they are persecuted long after the sentence is served, For some a lifetime ban seems appropriate, others not so much. Their protection and ability to defend their own children is greatly diminished without access to guns. Their voice stifled, with out a vote.

    • Yep. People are so quick to place a life time sentence of defenslessness, of servitude, of the inability to defend ones self or family or loved ones on another human being. Even if that person has shown twenty or thirty years of being a law abiding and productive citizen once they had “paid their dues”.

      The inhumanity, the callousness, the cold and contemptuous treatment of someone called a “felon” is breathtaking. Even of someone who had been criminalized for simply putting what is now currently an “illegal”substance in their body hurting no one but themselves.

    • Including those felons who have never even been accused of a violent crime, like an embezzler who has served 5 years, forever prohibited from self-defense. Pretty stupid. If the person is dangerous, keep him in prison.

    • Don’t be too confident in the mental health system….there are no objective tests to confirm or deny any psychiatric defined disorder. This means all diagnoses of mentally ill is 100% subjective. BTW they just added to the exponentially growing list of defined mental illnesses to include “oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD. The definition of this new mental illness essentially amounts to declaring any non-conformity and questioning of authority as a form of insanity. According to the manual, ODD is defined as:
      […] an “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” symptoms include questioning authority, negativity, defiance, argumentativeness, and being easily annoyed.

      This make most gun owners, and nearly everyone posting opinions here mentally ill, by definition.

      • That would make all of those that resisted King George and one of the greatest military power of the time in a successful revolution as psychologically handicapped if not down right insane.

    • Not only that, it’s almost entirely wrong. Most mental health professionals will happily poison their patients into a zombie like state and claim they’ve been “helped”. Meanwhile the suicide and violence rates are through the roof because of those brain damaging meds. They still use electro-shock and some are advocating for the modern version of lebotomy to “help” patients with moderate to severe symptoms. They’re more like the freakin’ Spanish inquisition than doctors. And no, I am not one of those patients, thank God.

      • “The Inquistion, what a show
        The Inquistion, here we go
        We know you’re wishing
        That we’d go away
        But the Inquistion’s here and it’s here to stay
        The Inquistion, oh boy
        The Inquistion, what a joy
        The Inquistion…”

  17. Take away the kids killed by gangbanger’s crossfire and suicidal crazies that couldnt pass a background check and how many kids are killed by legally acquired and owned guns? Now compare that to deaths at the hands of, or neglect by, meth- and crack-fueled parents, siblings and caregivers. Maybe they should shift their focus to things not so benign. Inanimate objects are easy to demonize and will always be scapegoated before actually dealing with the human cause.

  18. How about something to protect them from all the stupid falling out of the mouths of people with GSCV???

    Just being on the same planet as them must be causing harm.

  19. The reason they get away with it is perception. The perception that everytime someone suggests something to prevent innocents getting shot the pro-gun lobby will do everything they can to block it regardless of the proposal. I am not saying it is true but that is the perception. As an example after Sandyhook several proposals were put forward, some previously suggested by the NRA but there was a sudden about face and these measures were blocked from moving forward. Regardless of the facts of the situation measures were proposed and rejected with the cry of they are taking my guns away. The only pro gun measures reported were to arm teachers and security guards which goes down as well as stronger background checks or connected police databases.

    If the anti-gun lobby is to be discredited there needs to be a strong push from the pro-gun side for better measures to get guns away from criminals. Laws don’t stop criminals, I know, but laws help the police do their job more efficiently. Whatever push there is from the pro-gun side is not being heard on the otherside. Drop the arm everyone call and start shouting about real measures with real safeguards to protect the law abiding.

    • “Drop the arm everyone call and start shouting about real measures with real safeguards to protect the law abiding.”

      Paul, I am waiting with bated breath for your suggestion as to a single possibility to advance your idea of “protecting” anybody which does not impact my freedom. As in one which is not already in effect. There will never be such a thing except for one possibility, which is so obvious that you carefully said to drop it, deliberately refuse to consider it. If the law abiding wish to be protected, they need to do it themselves, and the best way to do that is with a gun. It is already against the law to be a criminal, as well as to use a gun while being a criminal.

      So tell me, WHAT “measures” are you suggesting, and exactly how would they protect anybody in ways not already in effect?

      • I think you are missing what I am saying. I agree that the best way to protect yourself and others is to be armed and not have to hope someone else is and they get there in time.

        The point I am making is that the call to arm everyone is greeted with absolute horror. Tell me you haven’t noticed that.

        If we want to get ahead of the anti-gun lobby we need to get ahead of them and stop calling for the one thing they don’t want to hear. Guns are not the problem, criminals with guns are the problem. Having the ability to protect yourself works for you but it doesn’t work for everyone. You may think they are strange or just dumb but not everyone wants to carry a gun. 50% of the population is of below average ability, I am not too keen on them running round with guns.

        I personally am not suggesting anything here. I will be absolutely stunned if no one has any idea (realistic idea) how we can reduce the number of guns in criminal hands or out of the hands of psychos. At the very least, there must be realistic ideas of how to help the police catch criminals quicker.

        I was at a talk by the Houston police recently where they were teaching how to survive active shooter situations. Part of that was the revelation that before they go out on duty they pledge to protect a civilians life before their own. We owe it to them to them to do what we can so that doesn’t have to happen.

    • Hmm. Well Paul. Maybe give some examples of “real measures” combined with “real safeguards to protect the law abiding” and I’ll tell you if I would support any of them.

      • I am not suggesting that I have some magic idea. I am suggesting that there are ideas out there though that are not getting heard.

        Personally I would like to see campaigns stigmatizing criminal use of guns combined with raising the standing of responsible gun ownership. If you are trying to make irresponsible use of guns socially unacceptable while Hollywood is glamorizing it there is a big win in discrediting the anti-gun side.

    • Local law enforcement along with the BATF in cities like Chicago and Los Angeles can make a big dent in criminal possession of guns with current laws. I dare say if they got serious about enforcing current laws, they could make thousands of arrests in these cities just for felon in possession. Give them all 10 years and you would see a nose dive in murder rates. But we have lazy police administrators who are more interested in pushing political agendas than actually taking on crime and gangs.

  20. My children are adults now. The 2nd amendment gives them the ability to protect themselves. It gave my wife and I the ability to protect them while they were under our roof.

    • Well, if not scared, at least of the mindset that it is someone else’s business to protect their children.

    • Bingo. The anti’s I know are people that look and act like the characters on Big Bang Theory. OMG Bang. They are people the bullies used to shove head first into garbage cans and would never fight back.

  21. CSGV is honestly a bunch of crazed people out of their minds, and the sad part is they can’t even see it. If Ted Nugent is supposed to be the crazy extreme lunatic guy on the gun side according to them, they are the Ted Nugent of gun grabbers.

  22. Oh yeah that’s the same amendment that says YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN SWALLOWED. Land of the blind.

  23. Maybe, just maybe, the children would be better protected if they didn’t have fucking morons for parents…

  24. Interestingly, I think their post is quite honest. The second amendment IS better protected than *their* children. Better protected than my children, though? No.

  25. The second amendment is what protects us from not only the government, but also, your gang banging, irresponsible, drug dealing, car stealing, stolen gun wielding, home invading, “Children”.

    • Exactly!

      “…protects our children”?

      What? Again? Still?

      Protects our “children” based on what parameters; from fellow gang-bangers? There is no epidemic otherwise or anything even close, involving innocent ‘children’ and guns. Failure to strap children up when driving with them is a much bigger problem. Where’s the outrage on that?

      What a bunch of hooey. Simply more of the same old rhetorical programing from the antis for the benefit of the abundant uninformed sheeple of our society in an attempt to effect culture change; of course with the gratuitous help of the anti-gun media and sympathetic statist elements of government.

      And they have it all backward. No equalizing weapons (guns) in society = less deterrence ad protection against stronger malicious yoots and adult thugs preying on the weaker and vulnerable, including families with ‘children’.

      These utopian dreamers must have never heard of either Darwin or the Bible. The concept of self-preservation survival doesn’t fit their philosophy, I guess, unless the state grants it to them as an entitlement.

  26. And which amendment protects my rights, including my individual right to keep and bear arms from people like you ?

    • Which amendment protects people from natural selection, because I’m thinking if we amend that amendment this problem will take care of itself.

  27. They can’t even stay on-message. From Miguel, CSGV posted this gem: “The country is not being ‘terrorized’. Violent crime is down and the overwhelming majority of home invasions happen when no one is home. You’re buying into paranoia you claim to reject.”

    Wait? CSGV says violent crime is DOWN? I thought there was a “violence epidemic” or something? 🙂

    • The definition of “home invasion” includes the owners being home, the guy demonstrates his abject ignorance.

    • These people don’t care about truth, facts, or saving lives, they just don’t like guns. I saw a guy on their boards give a very well worded, calm, and respectful defense of the 2A, and they tore him apart, not with facts or even counter opinion, it was all name calling and blatant disgust that someone dare have a different opinion than them. These people are a lost cause, and Ladd Everitt is just lying enabler of this kind of behavior.

  28. Very easy question to answer actually. And the answer is the First Amendment.
    You have a right to explain to your kids what the second amendment is and also how to properly use and handle a weapon even if you don’t own one yourself. Because children that are tough how to respect guns are not those you see on videos shooting themselves. Its the children that have been left in the dark about guns because they were to small to understand.

    If a two years old is smart enough to pick up a gun and point it to him/her self and pull the trigger he/she’s also smart enough to learn how to safely point it and how to not pull the trigger. And all of that information you can give your child is covered by the first amendment.

  29. I heard Ladd Everette on a radio show debating an elderly constitutional lawyer. He was facile and obnoxious, refusing to let the other man speak, then complaining how “boring” the lawyer was. It wasn’t do boring when the lawyer crushed Ladd’s argument…

  30. You ought to read their tweets. I don’t think they vet whoever does their messaging. It seems like one myopic lunatic on a troll mission rather than an established organization that is taken seriously. I really think they have NO SENSE of how crazy they sound to fence straddlers and even lukewarm pro-gun control folks. Lack of self-awareness, especially for an organization that contains more than a handful of people, is a very good indicator of a group of insane people. I hear this perspective of CSGV echoed all the time from non-gun people, and frankly I’m quite happy CSGV portrays themselves through their own messaging the way they do. MDA used to have less crazy messaging (though I don’t agree with any of it) but now they’re starting to sound more like CSGV.


    And frankly, VIPs, banks, jewelry stores, gas stations, liquor, and cartons of cigarettes are protected better than your children are IF YOU AREN’T PREPARED TO USE A WEAPON AGAINST THOSE WHO WOULD HARM THEM. That’s your malfunction CSGV.

  31. Maybe we should start a campaign and start helping these poor constitution hating people leave this country.

    We pay the air tickets for them to move to China, Malaysia or maybe ISIS the gun-free wonderlands (cheaper than some of those European places, this is a charity program after all), in exchange for their oath to forbid the US citizenship, That’s a win/win situation.

  32. This statement above is better than a debate I recently had with a very articulate northeasterner. He said that I believed “freedom to” is better than “freedom from” with an argument regarding “gun violence.” Which was very strange because “freedom from the freedom to” … do something is no freedom at all.

    Right from the CSGV page:

    The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) is a 501(c)(4) organization that was founded in 1974. We seek to secure freedom from gun violence through research, strategic engagement and effective policy advocacy.

    “freedom from” the “freedom to” own a gun. So – no freedom.

  33. In all honesty, the sad part is that you at TTAG continue to address and debate them as worthy opponents.

    I would completely ignore them because you only feed the false paradigm of the issue by continuing to debate insanity.

    • “I would completely ignore them because you only feed the false paradigm of the issue by continuing to debate insanity.”

      We ignore them at our own peril.

      This has been discussed many times. There are a LOT of reasons to engage this lunacy.

      One such reason is that we often hear there are a lot of ‘fence sitters’ out there. They hear stuff about “guns” as reported in the MSM and on blog sites. At some point, some of them want to look something up – perhaps to verify what they heard or to fact-check it or whatever. It doesn’t matter WHY they look into it further.

      So…ask the Magic Eight Ball (aka, The Google) something about “Second Amendment and children’s safety.”


      Do you want this CSGV nonsense to be the ONLY thing that’s seen?


      Could it JUST BE POSSIBLE that one might also see a site called “The Truth About Guns” and Google’s summary line depicting the information in that other link as bat crap crazy?

      There is a “culture war” going on, and gun rights/2A issues are a big part of that. This culture war is in large part being waged online.

      Silencing ourselves in that arena, THIS arena, cedes that battlefield to the enemy.

  34. Are you F’ing kidding me! It is this mentality that is causing this country to go down the tubes. I’ll remember this the next time I see that a CCW holder prevented a robbery or protected their family from a home intruder.

  35. There are literally thousands of laws written to protect children from any number of criminals from rapists to kidnappers to arsonists yet NONE of them do anything to stop a criminal from harming children. Of those thousands of laws the 2nd Amendment is the only law that actually stops a criminal from harming your child.

  36. Once again – the insanity is believing the 2nd Amendment is principally related to “gun ownership”.

    But I refuse to act surprised at this sort of thinking from that sort of people.

  37. The underlying principle is that people cannot be trusted, so we must entrust them to…..other people? Got it.

    Whether you view all people as helpless children, forever in need of parental figures, or as evil schemers, always plotting injury to others, you’re still left with this pseudo-solution of placing other such people in control over them.

    There are names for various ideologies based on such a premise that certain self-appointed classes of people are entitled to hold illimitable dominion over other classes of people. Few of those names are flattering and probably none would CSGV embrace.

  38. Which amendment protects me from their stupidity??

    … there’s got to be some law out there for that…. being that stupid, should be illegal.

  39. One must assume an amendment can threaten someone and then that the 2nd amendment is threatening children. Lots of leaps of logic there. There is the whole inanimate objects are the culprit thing again.

  40. As far as I’m concerned, your kids don’t need protecting from my guns unless dey be trying to bust a cap off in my a$$, breaking into where I be livin’ or messin’ wif my posse (family).

  41. False equivalence.

    Logical fallacies are the last respite of the intellectually bereft and morally bankrupt.

  42. The CSGV, along with other gun control organizations, recently criticized the Pew poll that showed more support for gun rights, claiming that the poll presented a false dichotomy. I will concede that Pew could have done a better job with that, but the CSGV keeps presenting the false dichotomy that we can either protect people (specifically children) or guns, but not both. Hypocrisy.

  43. The answer to their question is…

    The second amendment.

    That’s the whole point, if we DIDN’T have the second amendment expressly limiting government influence on our natural rights, criminals and lunatics would still get guns.

    THEN how would you be protected?

    These people are not only dumb bit a$$ backwards.

  44. FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Which admendment protects our children from the First Amendment? The Fourth? Fifth?

    Not really surprised at the stupid, but more at the boldness of it.

Comments are closed.