Shannon Watts of Moms Demand Action for Civilian Disarmament (courtesy YouTube.com)

[Indianapolis, IN] Fri., Nov. 1, 2013: For the second time in six months, a deadly shooting has occurred inside an American airport. According to press reports, earlier today at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) a gunman with an assault weapon fired at least 10 rounds near security at Terminal 3, killing a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employee and injuring several others . . .

This is the second airport shooting in just six months. In May, a gunman opened fire in a Houston airport before turning the gun on himself. And the TSA recently reported a record number of firearms being found at airport checkpoints in 2013, up 30 percent from last year.

Despite these tragedies and increased gun danger at American airports, the gun lobby continues to fight to make it easier to carry loaded guns inside airports. For example, the gun lobby advocated for the new policy that makes it legal for permit-holding gun owners to bring loaded weapons into the Hartsfield-Jackson airport in Atlanta, one of the busiest airports in the world.

This week alone, there have been three mass shootings in our nation: in Texas, South Carolina and Arizona. Today’s shooting at LAX is yet another tragic reminder that our country is suffering from an overwhelming gun violence epidemic that has spiraled out of control and threatens the safety of every single American.

The mothers of America call on this Congress to, finally, respond to this shooting tragedy as impetus to act on gun reform. Our nation needs new and stronger gun laws, such as background checks, and increased gun regulation, including a ban on assault weapons for civilians, to protect our families and loved ones from gun violence.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

180 COMMENTS

  1. I want to puke every time I see her face. Now they are going to want to ban high capacity mags, you know 10 rounds is way to many for a normal person to need. What will the magic number be this time?

        • Seriously… I understand the anger, but no reason to give ammo to a political adversary and allow them to portray you as someone who wants to urinate on a woman’s face. Gun control proponents may not be able to tell the difference between an M1 carbine and an AK, but many of them are more than smart enough to spin your words and turn you into a chauvinist.

        • No offense to either one of yall fine gentleman but I’m sick of the whole political correctness movement in this country anyway. I believe if you are a rather repugnant and distasteful human being that puts yourself in the spotlight by climbing on the dead claiming to speak for them not knowing them than you deserve to be ridiculed, tarred feathered, and openly mocked. I would make the same type of degrading comments of a man if there were a Dads Demand Action although their name alone would be a joke just as MDA is. The point is I could care less that she’s a woman her constant nagging and whining has costed Americans their guaranteed God given rights and for that she deserves all she gets and so much more.

      • Actually, this is pretty typical of the response from the gun community. Every time some guy with a mental illness decides to shoot up some school, theater, airport, or bar, the first reaction of the gun community is to blame people who favor magazine restrictions.

        Within a few days, the NRA will release some sort of self-serving non-comment about how the gun grabbers are trying to use the shooting to justify taking away everyone’s hunting rifles, and the gun control community will respond with the typical list of reasonable restrictions such as closing the gun show loophole, and the gun nuts will scream that it isn’t a real loophole, etc…

        The debate will go on forever, and people on this website will direct endless hatred toward every single person who dares to stand up to the gun nut community. After a comment or two, I will turn my comments off because I really don’t need to debate anyone who fills every sentence with third-grade insults.

        Lost in all this is the fact that people with mental illnesses can’t get reliable care or inexpensive medication. This event is just one of a long series of killings by mentally ill people. Aaron Alexis believed he was being controlled by electromagnetic waves when he killed 12 people at Washington Navy Yard, Adam Lanza had a personality disorder, and possibly autism. James Holmes sought help from at least three professionals in the weeks leading up to the shooting in Aurora, Colorado.

        A person with a known mental illness and a history of violent crime, in my community, typically gets only 3 or 4 days in a hospital, or usually jail. Depending on how obvious the symptoms are, he might be seen by nurses or social workers (rarely by a psychiatrist) and then be turned back out on the streets with nowhere to stay, no chance of getting the medications he needs, and no one supervising those medications if he did.

        Yes, I am mildly upset that he could go to a gun show and buy a good used Makarov in the parking lot for $200. (Blah, blah, 2nd Amendment, blah, blah.) I am much more upset that to get a reliable supply of medication, he has to be convicted of a felony and sent to prison.

        In my state, and in lots of others, prisons are now the only mental hospital available for the unemployed. If a patient is lucky enough to be sent to an actual mental hospital, they will medicate him for a few days (or hours) and then rush him out the door with a prescription in hand that he can’t even understand. Even if he could afford a few weeks of medication, he is, on average, more likely to spend his money on food, alcohol, or guns.

        There are 11,000 psychiatrically ill people being treated in the jails just in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City. If you moved them into state psychiatric hospitals, it would fill each one to overflowing.

        Obamacare is not even a proposed solution, by the way. The ACA gives even more power to third party insurers, who lose money every time a kid is diagnosed with a mental illness. It is much cheaper for insurers to see mentally ill kids in jail, diagnosed as a “habitual criminals”. Saves them a ton of money on medication.

        In country after country, mental patients are turned out onto the street for no other reason than to save money. In England and Canada, it is to save taxpayer money, while in the U.S., it mostly just saves the profit margin of the insurance companies.

        The results are the same. We get to argue about how best to keep them from killing random strangers. You don’t have to be a concerned mom or an NRA spokesman to see that the system is not working.

        Here is just a quick suggestion. Let’s take some of the money we are spending on jails and prisons, and use it to provide supervised medication to everyone who needs it. For just a minute or two, let’s stop arguing over whether it will lead to Communism, high taxes, or gun control.

        And then, next time there is a shooting, instead of arguing over where he got the gun, let’s try to figure out why he was not taking his medication.

        • Agreed, with the last part. Now while you figure out why he didn’t take his meds, don’t come after my guns, I think you just explained very nicely that they aren’t the problem.

        • Sir,

          I will agree that the mental health system is broken and that it needs to fixed. Personally, I think if they used some of the money from background checks to help the mentally ill that would be a step in the right direction. I will disagree with you on multiple points however. Saying that gun owners are ignorant and can only speak at a third grade level is insulting and also a lie. I am a former Democrat turned Independent and I majored in criminal justice in school. I learned about the broken system the problem is both parties don’t want to do anything to address it. We the people must demand that mental health care becomes a priority. On gun owners blaming gun control advocates for low capacity magazines, that is just plain silly. That is not happening, and if it does I will educate the person who thinks that is the issue. Here’s the facts though, this happen in one of the most gun controlled states in the country, In one of the most, if not the most, gun controlled city, and that city’s airport, which is a gun free zone. Here’s the point that we keep trying to tell people. Gun free zone, have never once stopped a shooter and have him turn himself in. If more guns equals more crime, then every gun shop should be a bloodbath. Statistically your argument is not something that adds up. Responsible gun owners have never been the issue just as responsible drivers are not to blame for drunk driving. The issue is that as we grow more intelligent and more advanced as a society, we think we can stamp out evil and crime. Technically this is achievable, but not at a cost any of us is willing to pay as it would mean giving up all freedom in place of security. There are lessons to be learned here: 1. Again gun free zones do not and will never work. Every major mass shooting of at least the last 10 years has happened in a gun free zone and almost every single one had a victim in the shooting who was a licensed concealed carry permit holder who had been disarmed because people don’t trust that person to responsibly defend their own life and not just lose it and kill everyone. Criminals pick gun free zones because they are turkey shoots. 2. It appears as though the gun used in the LAX shooting was a magazine fed rifle, it also appears that he used 10 round magazines and being in California also had a bullet button to contend with to perform magazine changes and rifle operation. I won’t go into detail, but it makes operation of a rifle a pain in the ass. Technically both of these facts should have slowed him down, but as stated before if you limit magazine capacity these shooters will just carry more and the ten round limit may slow him down, but when no one else is shooting back, that won’t matter much. 3. Assault Rifles are not the problem! This gun could have done the exact same damage with a pistol and maybe even more given how crowed airports typically are. The issue as stated by you, is mental health that is what we need to try and help. 4. A new gun law has never saved any life that can be proven with the exception of the criminal who decides to prey on the weak. Criminals do not obey the law, drugs are illegal and so is murder, yet it happens every single day. You cannot legislate sin and the human condition. Whether you believe in God or not, Free Will is something every human has which is what makes life interesting and worth living. You must understand that the people who will obey the new laws enacted were not the problem and were never going to be the problem. People who make the argument that a citizen doesn’t need a high capacity magazine are assuming that that person must have nefarious intentions due to what they posses. Do you truly believe that every assault rifle owner means to kill? If that is the case than almost everyone in this country would be dead, because there are thousands and thousands of people who own these rifles and will never hurt anyone with them.

          I appreciate the point you raised, but not all gun owners are ignorant inbred hicks, in fact quite a lot of us are very well educated. I use reason and logic in my analysis of issues and there is simply no law that will solve the problem and Just remember you don’t have to believe in a higher power and you don’t have to like guns, but if you are ever involved in a shooting or the victim of a crime the first two things you are going to do is pray or hope to higher power you live and call someone with a gun to come help you.

        • Thank you Dave for your cogent comments. It’s tough to weigh in when the ugly and offensive commenters try to bully and intimidate. Thanks also to Shannon for her persistence in the face of threats, unbelievable rudeness and offensive comments. Arguing with these folks has no useful purpose so blocking them is the only way to go. Let’s not give them a forum for their awful and immature behavior.

          • What’s really funny, Joan, is we have no problem giving you and your organization a forum for your comments. With very few exceptions, we don’t block or ban or censor people.* You are welcome to bring your opinions here, as well as your facts. But I’ll warn you. We don’t tolerate bullshit well. Bring your “A” game, and come armed with facts, not feelings.

            * Unlike your organization, which blocks virtually anyone who disagrees with you, no matter how politely. To wit: I don’t comment on Facebook. It’s just not my thing. But when I saw a bunch of people absolutely losing their minds over this photo on your Facebook page, I felt compelled to leave the third comment I’ve left on Facebook in ten years. My comment very politely pointed out that everyone was losing their minds over “weapons of war” and “military assault rifles” and “those don’t need to be on our streets,” while the guns the two girls are holding aren’t any of those things. They’re .22LR semi-automatics, and are functionally no different than a Ruger 10/22. Within an hour, my polite, well-spoken comment that featured absolutely no profanity, abuse, rudeness, bullying, or intimidation had been deleted, and I had been blocked from making further comments on your Facebook page. So please explain to me how I’m supposed to have any respect whatsoever for the opinions of people who brook no disagreement, no matter how slight. Beyond their opinions, how am I supposed to have any respect for the people themselves?

            • Same here, I provided some insight into a post they had, similar to what you did and I too was banned from commenting as well as my post was deleted, and not unlike yours, just provided the truth about the photo. I assume they delete all comments that oppose their view so they appear to have way more people agree with their statements.

              I did find it hilarious and sad all those commenting on the M&P 15-22’s like they are fully automatic m-16’s. Wow, ignorant. It just goes to show you they judge a book by it’s cover. Something we have been saying forever, just because it “looks” like a military rifles does not mean it functions as one. One comment went on to say NO one needs a semi-auto weapon of any kind. lol

        • Dave, Your opening is typical of the gun control lobby’s response to the gun owning community: distract from the root cause to elevate your position above total absurdity. This comment also applies to Joan, who relies on ad hominem attacks on dissimilar viewpoints to further her opinions.

          You did however hit the target with your observations on the sorry state of mental health care in this country. I agree with you completely that the ACA will do nothing to improve this situation. Sadly, Shannon Watts and those of her ilk do nothing to remedy this sad situation, and in fact act as a distraction from the underlying causes of violence while enriching themselves at the expense of the deluded and befuddled.

          Unfortunately for you and Joan however, this board does allow commenters to exercise their right of free speech. Joan chooses to refuse comment and criticism; that’s her right, as petty and closed-minded as it seems to me and many otherts. If you don’t like what is said here, go elsewhere. The Internet is a big space.

    • another reason why they should ban gun against dumb fucking people like the ones that log onto this worthless hillbilly website. ur all muderers. u should be assamed of yourselfs and the gov’t should take away all your guns

      • This got caught in the moderation filter, and I was going to delete it, but I decided to let it stand, because it makes me feel good about myself. Kinda like watching Jerry Springer or going to Walmart.

      • If you don’t like living in a free country with rights, Move your hairy ass to one without them. I hear Afghanistan is just right for your type.

      • Your sarcasm is too subtle. There is a really fine line when it comes to sarcasm…. too much and it’s obvious and you loose the effect of sarcasm. Too little, or too subtle, it gets missed and you are taken seriously.

        Do keep trying. Practice makes perfect.

      • Have you EVER done anything worthwhile with your life guy? I mean besides nukin big macs or foldin sweaters at the Old Navy??

  3. Look, I don’t want to pick on her kid, but I can’t help but think that her constant fear-mongering is doing nothing to help whatever anxiety issues the kid has. It sure as hell isn’t helping.

    “I want to tell you it’s safe to go to the movies, honey, but I just can’t. There are too many big scary guns out there, and you’re always going to be in danger.”

      • If you click on the photo, it takes you to the video. Which I’d never seen before. Which raises all kinds of interesting questions. Which I’ll address in a separate post.

      • So a kid, 1300 miles away from a shooting, has panic attacks? I’d say their origin is closer to home, like, in the home? Dingbat is as dingbat mom does… By now, I’m sure the agoraphobia is firmly implanted in that kid’s addled mind. Mom will blame everyone but herself. Where is that boy’s father, or did our MDA founder castrate him before kicking him out of the house?

        • Those were pretty much my thoughts as I was watching the video.
          I feel for the kid having a mother like her but I think she is more to blame than the actions of others outside the family.

        • I think you nailed what the problem is. She has embraced the victim mentality and passing it on to her kids. I suppose the consolation is that if all the kids of these moms never leave their homes, they won’t breed and that would effectively eliminate this distorted segment of the population after the next generation that won’t be born

          • There is also a “victim mentality” here at TTAG. Every time someone loses their mind and shoots a law enforcement officer, TTAG goes into full victim mode, lashing out against media, politicians, and even victims, in fear that UN troops are going to march in and take their HK416’s away.

            I understand why the NRA does it. (They do it to sell guns.) I just don’t understand why the hatred against every single person who wants to toughen background checks. I don’t understand the irrational fear of gun registration. I don’t understand insulting and degrading people who have rational fears.

            • Define “toughen background checks.” When they don’t include the data they’re already supposed to, why should I agree to add more data or more stringent regulations?

              How’s this for an irrational fear of gun registration? I mean, besides the “registration tells them where to pick up the guns” argument, which has happened in this country, not just Nazi Germany or whatever… Gun registration lets them do what you see all the time on TV. If there’s a call at my house — let’s say my girlfriend gets psycho and calls the cops as a retaliatory measure — registration lets them see that “he has guns registered at that address.” Then, instead of coming with a prowler and a couple unis, they come with a SWAT team, because there are “weapons on scene” and if I refuse to come out of my house, I’m not being “uncooperative” but instead I’m “barricading myself in the house with guns.” Don’t think it can happen? Clock this: http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/john-geer-shot-by-police/ And here: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-03/local/41723984_1_police-officer-front-door-shooting

              • Matt,

                I think that is a valid fear, but I don’t know if it is particularly related to gun registration. Where I live, the police raided nine barber shops a few years ago with guns drawn.

                Police used overwhelming force in each case, frequently arriving with a dozen or more deputies. They handcuffed barbers to their chairs in front of customers, and eventually arrested them for cutting hair without a license.

                I think you have at least one valid point: If the barbers had been carrying guns, the police raid would have gone much worse for them. It is not hard to imagine that some of them might have gotten shot.

                Regardless, the police acted as if the barbers were going to be armed. I am not sure that registered guns would have made it any worse.

                You may be right, of course. Some girl (or guy) will eventually call the cops and say “he (or she) threatened me with a gun.” The ownership of a gun then becomes evidence that may be used against the owner? Maybe. I can’t see how registration would change that, but I am not a lawyer.

                I am more interested in situations where some guy in Virginia buys 20 or 30 cheap, crappy Bersa, Taurus, Hi-point, and used Raven’s every month. You can’t tell me he is a collector, because anyone who collects Ravens has a mental illness.

                He is clearly trafficking guns, and purchasing on other people’s behalf. There are already laws against it, but no way to enforce them, because the guns aren’t registered to him, and he is under no requirement to register the people he sells them to.

                People on this board keep telling me “criminals will always find a way to get guns.” Well, of course they will. Especially when the laws have been written to help them do so.

                So here is an easy change: Limit purchases to one gun per month. Any purchasing in any higher volume has to be registered. If you are a legal collector, then don’t worry, you can still own as many guns as you want, you just have to live with the fact that a few of them are registered to you.

                How many lives would it save? Hard to say. How many people are killed in Chicago each year with guns that came from trafficking? 500 or so?

                What right should those victims have? Do they outweigh the rights of gun traffickers?

            • @Dave
              The NRA doesn’t sell guns.
              I’ve heard that untrue statement repeated much to often lately… tell a lie often enough and the misinformed assume it’s true.

              “I don’t understand the irrational fear of gun registration”
              History is full of reasons against it.

              “I don’t understand insulting and degrading people who have rational fears”
              The use of the word rational to describe fears is highly questionable.
              The fears of some do not trump the rights of others no matter how great those fears may be.
              One does not have a right to feel safe at the expense of others rights.
              See
              http://www.redstate.com/cmndr45/2013/08/15/guns-at-the-state-capital-self-defense-trumps-fear-of-firearms/

              It would appear there is much you don’t understand.

              • Keith, I am still not sure this is a fair comparison. You claim that your fears of gun registration are rational, but other people’s fear for the safety of their children is not.

                You claim that your right to unregistered guns trumps other people’s right to safety from unregistered guns. I disagree.

                You claim your right to ten-round magazines trumps other people’s right to magazine size limits. From a pure discussion of rights, this seems specious.

                You glossed over the fact that this website’s first response is to insult and degrade people who disagree. In fact, you do have that right. But it is still a childish response that indicates shallow thinking.

                You can be sure, though, that I won’t be clicking on any links to RedState. If that is where you get your talking points, you are quoting people who thrive on hatred and intentional ignorance.

              • Dave
                I made no comparison.
                You made the statement “I don’t understand the irrational fear of gun registration”
                By making such a statement you attempt to make it appear as though anyone that holds opposition to something has an “irrational fear” of such. Typical liberalease.
                Opposition does not equate to irrational fear.
                I pointed out that history is reason enough to oppose gun registration, i.e. that it would be considered prudent to avoid that slippery slope. It’s not about fear, it’s a matter of making rational decisions based on historical events.
                Gun registration does not promote safety as the unlawful criminals and those with criminal intents will not register their guns. It will only place burden on the law abiding citizens.

                I judge the article by the character of it’s content not by the color the website leans.
                If the article was posted on HuffPo would you be more inclined to agree with it?

                I happen to agree that the fears of some do not trump the rights of others.
                Does Aquaphobia trump the rights of others to have a swimming pool or take a shower?
                Does Acrophobia trump the rights of skydivers?
                Does Hoplophobia trump the rights of others to own firearms in America?
                No, they do not.
                If the fears of some trump the rights of others we would have to ban everything on earth for the sake of Panphobia.

                You didn’t click the link and read the article?
                How can you oppose an article you didn’t read?

                Why is it that you consider everyone that holds differing beliefs and ideas that don’t align with your own as being “people who thrive on hatred and intentional ignorance”?
                I find that to be a bit arrogant on your part for thinking you are somehow more intelligent than those which you disagree.
                I would suggest you read some of the liberal comments made on HuffPo for an example of people who thrive on hatred and intentional ignorance.

              • Keith, the reason I don’t click on “RedState” is because they have a long history of changing comments from people they dislike. I have personal experience with this.

                On TTAG, if I make a comment that the moderators disagree with, they usually post the comment. If they feel I am trolling, they can delete the comment. On RedState, they change the comment and fill it up with offensive insults, lies, and other people’s words.

                TTAG encourages debate, while RedState encourages name-calling, lies, hatred, and misrepresentation.

                TTAG has always allowed me to make my own point, and either win the argument or lose it. RedState changed my argument into something that I never said, and then added racist remarks, to make it look like the comments came from me.

                RedState also encourages their readers to log in to liberal websites, and then post hate speech and lies, in order to make liberal sites look bad.

                It would not surprise me if Huffington Post fans also post “false flag” rants on far-right websites. They don’t specifically encourage it, but I am sure it happens. Every once in a while, I notice a post on TTAG where someone seems to be cheering on the Klan, or some other such trollishness. I ignore those comments, and I notice that most of the other readers of TTAG do the same.

                So when you see someone on HuffPo say “I voted for Obama six times”, you can rest assured they did not. They are either liberal trolls, or conservative trolls, but they are not telling the truth.

                But the one thing I will not forgive is RedState changing my thoughts, changing my opinions, and then signing my name to a bunch of racist insults. The day they did that, I stopped reading their site, and I have never gone back.

                And I never will.

                And I will not value the opinions of anyone who does.

                And you cannot convince me that HuffPo or Wonkette or SadlyNo do the same. They do not. If they feel you are trolling, they will ban you. But they will not change your words to make you look ignorant. RedState does.

              • Dave
                I can’t vouch for the actions of Red State as I’m not part the clan that hangs out there and I’ve never made a comment there.
                I landed on that page from a Google search for “the fears of some do not trump the rights of others” in search of a page I was reading when my browser crashed and it did not remember the tabs I had open at the time when restarted.
                If I remember correctly a judge made that very ruling after someone was arrested for legal open carry. Another part of the ruling was that just because someone calls the police does not constitute illegal activity by another. I wish I could find that page again so I could reference the case and ruling.

                About HuffPo, I was banned from there before I ever made a comment there. I found out when I attempted to make my first comment. I guess I have a reputation that precedes me.

              • Keith, I understand the point. If someone lives in a state that allows open carry, then their right to carry trumps the rights of fear-mongers, by definition.

                But the other case should also be true. If you live in Chicago (ha, ha. But this is just a hypothetical), then you should have the right to assume that anyone walking around with a Hi-point .380 is a bad guy. (With no taste in guns.)

                The only thing that changed is the location. In Arizona, the Hi-point collector is considered to be almost-an-imbecile, but not a criminal. In Chicago, they can be assumed to be a danger to (themselves and) others.

                (Are you a Hi-point fan? Is there any such thing as a Hi-point fan?)

                One time, when I was waiting for a sandwich at a local grocery, two cops walked up to the lunch counter dressed in what appeared to be SWAT gear. (no helmet, though, but maybe it was out in the car.) Between the two of them, they had five guns showing, including what looked like an M4 carbine with the 9-inch “spray and pray” barrel. (Or maybe they just needed the short barrel for the grenade launcher?)

                Even though they were not wearing their badges, the haircuts and the extra magazines in the armored vests gave it away. Either way, they clearly were not hurting anyone. They stood in line, they got their sandwiches, they paid (I think), and they left.

                No one ran screaming from the grocery store.

                Although if I had walked into a store in Arizona with the same firepower, I can see why people might get a little worried. Why does anyone need a Glock 22 (or 23?) a custom 1911, and an M4 just to go get lunch? What if these had turned out NOT to be cops?

                But they seemed to know their rights, and no one was feeling froggy enough to argue with them.

                I feel your pain about posting on HuffPo. I am not sure I have ever posted there, but mostly because I have not ever tried. Writing in to agree with the majority seems like a waste of time.

                That is why I like this website, and FARK, and a few others that allow debate. I am in favor of most personal rights, I just think there should be limits. I am even open to discussion about whether there really is a “slippery slope”.

                In my experience, there is not. Most Americans support background checks, but will vote against anyone who tries to regulate any other aspect of the gun purchasing process. So in America, background checks are not a slippery slope to gun registration. One is popular, the other is not. It is an uphill slope, at best.

                Similarly, there is no slippery slope from USDA beef inspectors to mandatory vegan school lunches. One is a popular safety program, the other is an unpopular left-wing whim.

                Are vegan school lunches more popular than magazine-size limitations? They are? Then if there is a slippery slope, why is there no Tofu Tuesday at the local Middle School?

      • Don’t you just know that the terror – if it is real and in SW’s case, I do not know that I believe that – is just leaching out of her in every interaction with those kids. Children aren’t deaf or blind (most anyway) – they pick stuff up from listening to phone calls, tuning into muttering, and they can pull a mood out of the air around you. They are like dogs in that way, determining from their owner/parent what their reaction should be.

        Both mom and son need help on this. While the world is capable of being truly scary, real threat is very, very low. Certainly below what most people need to think about, at least in Indiana.

    • She should also tell the little bastard that there are too many scary people that live in windowless vans by the river, too many MMA fighters, too many stairs, too many crosswalks etc. Let the little turd live, there will always be danger. Teach your kid to protect himself, don’t bubblewrap the world

      • Shelton – I think that’s what she really wants, a “mini-me,” because no real man would have her. Apologies to Professor Diggler, of course.

        • Well, there’s having, and then there’s having… I’m pretty sure Mr. Diggler doesn’t want to *keep* her. 🙂

      • I’m reminded of an Ann Landers remark of quite some years ago to a similarly paranoid parent: “It is much better for a parent to prepare their child for the path than to attempt to prepare the path for their child.”

      • Yep. And step-mom’s got to establish her supreme mommyness, sovereignty.

        I just noticed, with this video, what an awful accent Shannon has, though she tries hard to cover it.

        Gun-control hustler. As if Indianapolis doesn’t have enough of its own problems, and Shannon enough of hers.

    • Dude, there’s not enough Xanax in the world to cure that kid’s inevitable anxiety issues…

    • I agree with this statement. If her child is that neurotic at 12 years of age, then something else is the root cause of his problem. Healthy 12 year old kids just don’t worry about getting killed, unless maybe they have had a horrific event occur in their lives. No normal 12 year old, has panic attacks going to a movie, because of a shooting (no personal experience resulting in a psychological trauma) at a theater he “learned about.”
      Perhaps the issue here is parenting. I mean if one wants to make ridiculous blanket statements, then one could also call into question her judgement as a parent allowing a 12 year old to see Batman. After all, it was a pretty dark movie for someone of that age. Someone should call Child Services and report her.

      • Hey Dirk, I’ll betcha their number is in the book. And her address is known. Think you could arrange for SWAT?

    • If she were my mom, I would have the same problems as her kid. Glad my parents taught me to not fear the world, but to understand that there are dangerous things out there and to do my best to avoid them.

    • Gee, she seems not to like guns very much, but she lets her 12 year old to go to a violent movie? And then she blames his psychological trauma on Aurora? I sense a great disturbance in the force…..

  4. Since when is what happened today considered a mass shooting?
    MDA is chock full of retard
    Not to mention this happened in a state with some of the most draconian gun laws in the country. Isnt that a paradox?

  6. There was no “mass shooting” in AZ. It was a neighbor dispute and there were a lot of people in one house. If any of them had a gun it would have turned out differently. Also, in all of these instances it happened to be a mentally unstable person. While the NRA has pushed for years to limit access of guns to mentally unstable people, liberal policies have either blocked efforts or blocked reporting. Nice try in attempting to get everyone to see only the part of the story thay you want to push.

        • Why should the NRA respond in any way to MDA? Do you think that the NRA is afraid of MDA’s six members?

        • Well, it’s TTAG’s decision to give them a lot of free publicity, but the NRA may have other ideas.

        • I don’t think the NRA should respond, or even acknowledge MDA directly (I think TTAG gives MDA too much airtime already).

          But they have to realize that the ONLY talking heads people hear after any of these crimes are the anti’s scrambling to propose more gun control. They need a short, concise statement showing that these criminals choose to break numerous laws and can (and do) strike anywhere. All we ask is that the only tool available for self defense isn’t huddling inside an airport bathroom stall with your fingers crossed…

        • I agree with Ralph – MDA in NO WAY requires or even merits a response.

          Its like trying to put out a fire on the Television by throwing a bucket of water at it – you just fuck up your television while the fire keeps playing on everyone else’s TV. Just change the channel and move on.

  8. “And the TSA recently reported a record number of firearms being found at airport checkpoints in 2013, up 30 percent from last year.”

    While this may be true, it is zero correlation to any shootings in airports. Mostly the guns found in airports are due to people being lazy and/or stupid when packing for a trip.

    “The mothers of America call on this Congress to, finally, respond to this shooting tragedy as impetus to act on gun reform”

    So this will mean that 6 more calls will come into the Congressional switchboards. With healthcare melting down, I now the Democrats may try to play this as a distraction, but no one should care while the healthcare website is FUBAR and policy cancellations are flying out the door.

    • Oddly enough, guns go bad and decide to discharge when in the presence of ‘lazy and stupid’ gun owners. Part of the reason antis are so distrustful of guns.

      • OK, so the lazy and stupid travelers whipped out their suitcases and briefcases and told the guns inside to fire. You happy now?

    • Depends a whole lot on WHICH people, Conrad, and WHY you feel like shooting them.

      Some people just deserve to die. Others just go around begging for it.

  12. Now IS the time for politicans to discuss and propose more gun control… just in time for next week’s elections.

  13. More laws, more gun control, more places where shootings occur. Seems we’re safer where there are fewer laws. BTW Defensive is an antonym of Assault. From now on all me weapons are defensive!

  14. “Despite these tragedies and increased gun danger at American airports, the gun lobby continues to fight to make it easier to carry loaded guns inside airports.”

    It’s known as a solution that fits the problem.

    • After all it was a citizen carrying a loaded gun in the airport that stopped it at one death; not the unarmed TSA workers or travelers.

  16. Turned out the shooter had a suicide mission. So, it is a mental illness thing.

    In the meantime as her video was done was made, doctors, smoking, heart attacks due to being too fat, and vehicle accidents killed at least 100x more that this shooter did.

  17. Boy howdy are they showing their biases on this one. It’s practically a roadmap of their tactics.

    First, they clearly believe that every person with a gun is a BAD person with a gun. There is no room in their logic for people who lawfully carry guns and are not agents of the judicial system.

    Second, they completely get it wrong on why an increasing number of guns are caught at TSA checkpoints. It’s not because there are more would be criminals and terrorists (see: point #1) but because their worst nightmares are coming true — guns are increasingly NORMAL for private citizens to carry, and therefore the number of PoTG who make an innocent mistake and forget they have a gun in a bag is proportionally increasing.

    Finally, as noted above, they’re really stretching with the mass shooting thing, to the point of undermining their own credibility. Keep up the good work in that one!

  18. Its for the children, its for the children and its for the children. Thats all I hear from these people, and since when does every shooting count as a mass shooting? All these high profile shootings have been happen in some of the strictest gun law states and in gun free zones. We couldn’t make these facts up any better!!

  19. She looks like a rat with a slurred speech. Shit if a redneck killing a few people is considered a mass shooting then what does she consider the holocaust?

    • She probably doesn’t even know about the holocaust except that it means “like omg all these gays jews and blacks were killed by mean white people!! Omg!!” She probably don’t know who did it. I suggest we don’t tell her that country has enough to worry bout.

  20. Isn’t the current assumption is that whacko used a Mini-14 or a Mini-30? Last time I checked those were specifically pardoned from DiFi’s AWB.

  21. My kid has a nervous tic, ban guns and I have a lot of children, do what I say… That’s all I got out of it.

  22. Not to intending to inflame, but this all just a little bit too convenient? Her statement was ready immediately after, or before, the actual incident. How do we know she didn’t plan/instigate this? She loves her some TSA so nobody would suspect her. If it was a mass shootout at NRA HQ with half the shooters not even being members I think we’d smell a rat.

    Maybe that brat of hers overheard the conversation/read transcripts/peeked at her battle plan and knew this was going to happen.

    I think that would explain magical panic attacks from 1300 miles away.

    • Yeah, it’s only been 10 hours. How could she possibly have written five paragraphs (which really say nothing more than she’s said before) in that amount of time? It must be a conspiracy!

      Seriously, get real.

    • My guess is that if she’s at all proficient at this line of work (and we know she is), she’s got at least a dozen “cookie cutter” press releases in a binder, racked and ready to go. And just where exactly does she send them, anyway?

      I’m more worried about the kid. From what I can gather here I would think when the adolescent hormones and the full moon come into simultaneous play he’s going to take her and his “step[stool]father” out with a baseball bat. Or he’ll become yet another overmedicated zombie. Bank on it.

    • Piet, exactly. It just seems like the game plan of Valerie Jarrett’s White House recently weekly Gun Violence Roundtables. No Biden. Lots of anti-gun groups represented. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/joe-biden-on-sidelines-in-gun-debate-98966.html

      Can’t push home Change You Can’t Believe without much more gun control. It isn’t about the Ghettos and the murders. They don’t really want to pull the paranoid schizophrenics off the streets. They just want the guns. Otherwise they’d be working on the obvious sources of greatest violence.

  23. I also find it funny that Shannon Watts is hiding from comments. Notice her Youtube video allows no comments to be posted, on the MDA website, there is no ability to email her comments, No where on the internet is there an email address that I could find to send her my point of view or the logic behind why I am not agreeing with MDA’s opinions. Of course there is no changing their minds, just as they will never change my mind, but it is offensive that I have to listen to her arguments and yet, she shelters herself from mine. She is a complete uninformed, ignorant coward!

    • It seems that gun owners tend to be very enthusiastic about their first amendment rights as well. It must kill them that their little keyboard mafia can’t muster the same resolve.

    • People are going after her on twitter, though, especially after she tweeted today that a semi-auto rifle makes it possible for a person to shoot ten rounds per minute. That earned her a bunch of scorn.

      • well she’s not wrong… I think out wouldn’t be too hard to get out 10 round per min. might have to take a 5.8 second break between shots, but it is possible.

  24. “our country is suffering from an overwhelming gun violence epidemic that has spiraled out of control”

    Because gun violence has been steadily decreasing?

    • The whole thing, Watts, the Bloomberg and Joyce financial carpetbagging-for-hire, is fairly disgusting. But I note that most people don’t seem to mind. The founders feared a large standing army….but Suzie Average doesn’t seem to equate the enormous growth of state and federal police forces equipped “with weapons designed for the battlefield” with a standing army. I find that odd, disheartening.

      About 3,500 US citizens have died due to terrorism over the last 12 years. Less than 350 a year, on average, out of 300 MILLIONS. And for that we’ve built a surveillance state and a nest of intrusive laws which benefit us little. At tremendous cost…so that billionaires with huge RE investment in a few big cities can feel secure concentrating their investments into a few square miles, building ever more target-rich environments. It’s a mistake, and the American people are suckers OR they don’t really get a choice at election time on this issue, and they see no economical way to object. You decide.

  25. I have brought up to Moms Demand the facts about police negligent discharges, corruption, abuse of citizens and criminal activity by law enforcement officers. In spite of the evidence that proves law enforcement is less “trustworthy” than civilians with so called assault weapons Moms Demand seems to give agents of government a free pass.

    • Because chains about the wrists, ankles, waist, and neck resting lighly upon you is the latest thing in progressive fashion.

  26. Really Shannon? Your son has panic attacks now? Well maybe you should have taken him to the shooting range once in a while,

  29. I love the term “assault weapon”, it reminds me that anyone that uses it has zero clue of what they are talking about and should thereby be ignored.

    Next.

  30. Ok time for my good deed of the day.. ATTENTION TTAG PERSONNEL AND VISITORS: YOU CAN FLAG MS. WATTS’ VIDEOS AND GIVE THE REASON THAT IT INFRINGES ON YOUR RIGHTS. that is all.

  31. Maybe the NRA should start their own press releases and announcements for all instances where there ISN’T a shooting on the news because armed citizens were present (ie. not a gun-free zone) and could be first responders as well as being an active deterrent to criminals.

    For example… all police stations seem pretty secure and are rarely (if ever) attacked. Why is that? As are military bases that aren’t gun-free zones and that have armed guards. Any places with good security. Go figure. How about gun ranges? Those should be bloodbaths… yet they are not. Or places where people ARE allowed to lawfully carry concealed.

    And keep highlighting the fact that crimes are at an all time low. It’s the media that is making it seem like it’s happening everyday. It’s called picking and choosing. Works on lemmings and sheeple I suppose. And as usual, MDA’s strategy is the band-wagon approach as well as picking the low-hanging fruit. We should count all the days BETWEEN shooting incidents as victories.

    I think you’ll find that the “good” / recreational / legal instances where guns are being used safely and responsibly far outweighs the rare mass shooting or the even the instances of crimes with firearms…

    And we should keep highlighting DGUs and lawful instances of self-defense without putting the defenders in the spotlight (for privacy).

    That ought to shut them up.

  32. As many have said the TSA needs to be staffed with armed LEO or they need close protection. Shooter exposed a security hole.

  34. 1 – Has any of these shooting occurred where people were carrying their concealed weapon? Like the place mentioned below taken from the above article “…makes it legal for permit-holding gun owners to bring loaded weapons into the Hartsfield-Jackson airport in Atlanta, one of the busiest airports in the world.”

    2 – these gun activists can go fk themselves!

    3 – who are these MOMs??? My mom is a proud supporter of the second amendment!

    4 – sounds to me these people are some uptight liberal cunts with nothing better to do than try and limit
    Law abiding citizens! Making new laws and Restricting lawful citizens is the same thinking that smashing a new bag of chips will give you more chips. Quit playing the victim! If you made the punishment for taking a life severe enough people would be more hesitant to do it!

  35. Wait. Didn’t this happen in a “gun free” zone in a state where the type of weapon used was already prohibited? Why didn’t he read the signs and the laws and go home instead? Where is my unicorn?

    • I have to say, I like these types of responses calling out how ineffective and ironic the gun-free zone signs are. Maybe after enough ridicule and pointing out that every shooting has these signs around just screams how immature and childlike that legislation is (which is SO obvious to anyone with a brain), they’ll rethink that whole “strategy”…

      But as it stands, those signs are a lovely (and very convenient) symbol of how much the anti-gun / gun control crowd are clueless when it comes to addressing sensible ways to deter crime, understanding law abiding armed citizens (of which we have millions yet we don’t have millions of shootings) are not a threat, understanding self-defense, and violence in general.

  37. Could you please tell me ONE law, or heck, 10 laws that would have prevented this? That gun was likely illegal in California, the magazines were probably illegal as well. Last time I checked MURDER and shooting people IS ILLEGAL! You will never get it. You can regulate guns, ammo magazines or whatever you want, it will not stop someone intent on doing harm. At best you will change the way those same people die, but until you focus on the real problems you will never stop it. Mental health and our prison systems are failing miserably, fix those, and you will reduce crime.

  38. You have no idea what you are talking about, Shannon, as usual. First, you don’t know what an “assault weapon” is, second, you have no idea how many is ten rounds or what they even are!! Go home, play mom to your kids, and stay out of conversations that you know nothing about!! The only reason you are doing this is because you are PAID by bloomberg as one of his lackeys! Bloomberg should stay home too as he is even more stupid that YOU!!!

  39. They should change their name from Mom’s Demand Action to Mom’s Need the D. When they don’t get the D, they get irritable. Would tell them to eat a snickers.

  40. I don’t know who she thinks she is to imply she speaks for the “moms of America”. Excuse me lady I am a mom of America and you certainly do not speak for me.

  42. Nothing is more arrogant than a tiny fraction of the women of America thinking they speak for them all.

  46. “The mothers of America call on this Congress to…”

    I suspect that she might be campaigning for herself in a future political run for office.

  47. I think we have to get past this idea that just because a woman squeezed out a baby it gives her some kind of moral right to lecture and dictate to the rest of us. This has been going on a long time and it isn’t just about guns. I’m sick of it.

  48. Is it possible to ignore this ‘group’ and keep an eye on them at the same time? The less exposure and response that they get the quicker they will fade. There’s some sort of illusion that when a new group puts out the same old tired garbage, it somehow spruces up the garbage.

  49. “gun reform”, another statist phrase which means remove the freedoms of the people. What this DOES show is the stark reality of the inability of “gun laws” to deal with violence. The author in the opening post decries the efforts to allow guns to be carried yet that is the precise remedy for random shooters.

  50. It’s funny – one person is shot (the TSA worker) and it is all over the news. Meanwhile, about 2-3 miles away young black men are shot nightly. Those shootings never make the national news.

  51. laugh…
    “gun danger”
    What is it??

    ” including a ban on assault weapons for civilians”
    Every gun could be an assault weapon. There are no black and whites here – Only gradients.

  52. Gun ownership is a responsibility, not a God given right. Ensuring that persons with domestic violence issues, persons with arrest records, young children or persons with psychological problems don’t have access to guns is one of those responsibilities of both government and the law abiding individuals who have firearms. Reasonable gun laws are needed.

    • Do you even have a clue of how many “reasonable gun laws” are on the books right now? NOTHING this guy did was legal, period, just like there isn’t a single gun law that prevents a single crime. Laws are there to punish those NOT doing the right and moral things in the first place. The prison is full for a reason. Most gun people will say we need more mental health issues, and NONE of us want the wrong people getting their hands on guns, but the problem with creating more laws is the only people you effect with those said laws are those willing to follow the laws in the first place and those are NOT the people you have to worry about, so it’s a catch 22. The more you limit us good folk from owning/carrying guns, the more criminals make victims out of us. I personally have been a victim of violence as well as I’ve NOT been a victim because I was able to be armed. Both were similar situations the only difference was I had an equalizer, and it changed the outcome. Step outside of your world and put yourself in other people’s shoes. Besides, when you are attacked, who do you call? someone with a gun.

    • Gun ownership is a civil right. Same as free speech, the right to vote and the right to be innocent until proven guilty. I will not jump thru your artificial hoops to exercise my rights. Nor do I agree to you putting any restrictions on my rights under the false guise of responsibility. I’m an adult with a clean record. The only responsibility the government has to me and my rights is to get out of my way while I exercise them.

    • We already have laws (sometimes in duplicate or triplicate) designed to do all those things you mentioned. Some of them are poorly designed. Some of them are poorly enforced. Your solution, instead of figuring out why they don’t work and fixing it, is to simply slap more bad laws on top?

    • I would disagree. The declaration of independence (second line) states:

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

      So… these rights… they don’t come from a piece of paper- but from every individual’s creator (there is freedom of religion – so they didn’t use “God” they used creator). They listed these rights in the bill of rights. They also thought these rights were obvious (held self-evident).

      Now the right to keep and bear arms is on that list. And if you look at the statements made by the very people that listed it… you will find it was included for defense of oneself, defense of ones country, and defense for the people against their very own government.

      Please additionally read my response here:
      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/robert-farago/guns-ammo-supports-gun-control/#comment-1352095

      for further discussion of your very topic.

      • The anonymous post above shows a couple of common mistakes made by conservatives (and sometimes liberals) in discussing law. First, the Declaration of Independence is not the basis of law of the United States. It is a document that was used to establish a justification for rebellion and war against England.

        Although it did reference certain natural and legal rights, including the right of revolution, this was considered to be a moral standard, not a legal one. The Declaration of Independence was a specific response to the Coercive acts in 1774 and the Prohibitory Act in early 1776 (which blocked the harbors in the states.) It did not create any new laws.

        The Declaration of Independence did crate a right of insurrection, but it was not intended to be an individual right. No one believed that small militia groups could simply form their own country at will. In fact, the Declaration of Independence goes to great lengths to point out all the different forms of redress that have to be attempted before you simply take up arms and revolt.

        They appealed to God as the basis of law, of course, because the laws of England had closed off every other option. The right to keep and bear arms was not on that list, but on a separate one a few years later.

        The right to bear arms was added to the Constitution, of course (not the Declaration of Independence), and was kept there for a very specific reason. Delegates from many states believed that the Federal Government would simply “take over” any states that got out of line. The Second Amendment was added (in part) to make sure the state militias could not be disarmed by the Federal Government.

        Subsequently, there was a Civil War to decide the issue. The matter is now considered settled, except in talk radio and parts of Texas.

        The 2nd Amendment has gradually come to be understood as an individual right, but if you are one of those people who claim to only honor the original intent of the Constitution, there is little evidence that it was created that way, and quite a bit of evidence that it was not.

        More to the point, just because gun rights are now individual rights does not mean that insurrection is now an individual right. You do have the right to keep guns in your house and use them for self defense. You do not have the right to simply start shooting any Federal employees that you disagree with.

        I keep reading on right-wing hate sites that armed nitwits are going to rise up and overthrow the Obama Administration by force. There are about 100 things wrong with this, but if you are using the Declaration of Independence as your legal authority, you are out of luck. The Declaration of Independence only applies when your votes have been ignored. As demonstrated in Colorado (and every other state), voting still matters. You can throw out any representatives that you dislike, and you can replace them any time you have enough motivation to get up off the couch. Since we know that voting works, anyone who resorts to violence is not a patriot, they are a traitor.

        And anyone who thinks they can get a few hundred Bubbas together, get all fired up about having to buy health insurance, and then go overthrow a legally elected President, is going to find out otherwise. It is hard to say who will kill you first, but if you are good enough to survive the local cops and secret service, then it will be the U.S. Marines. They take a dim view of traitors, and they are not known for violating orders just because of arguments about Obama’s birth certificate, Bush’s military record, or Reagan’s mental condition.

        Similarly, anyone who thinks that the TSA has no right to search your luggage has a number of options open to them. You can sue the TSA, you can elect new representatives, or you could drive. One thing you cannot do is decide that the Declaration of Independence, or “God’s law” gives you the right to go shoot Federal employees in LAX.

  57. This country and its politicians are completely incapable of stopping the illegal importation of drugs, guns, people or anything else for that matter. So if guns are outlawed then of course only outlaws will have guns. If you believe that one of the of patrolmen (one for about every 20,000 people in your city at any given time, and in some cases less) will be able to stop a gun toting criminal before he can make you his next victim then you need to rethink your plans for the future. I am not willing to allow someone to force me into giving some criminal who has no regard for the law the advantage to make me his next victim and its unreasonable for anyone to tell me I have no right to equal the playing field.

Comments are closed.