“What gun control measures do you support?” the Arise TV interviewer demanded. “None,” I said. And there you have it. I don’t support any background checks for firearms purchases. I didn’t before Newtown. I don’t now. Most Americans do. Most Americans believe that a gun dealer should check an FBI database to see if the government should “allow” someone to buy a gun. That’s “common sense.” Just as most Americans once believed that the white man was superior to the black man . . .

That too was considered “common sense.” What changed that deeply held racist belief, to the point where white men were prepared to fight and die to eliminate the evils of slavery?

The same thing the gun control advocates are now using to convince Americans that violating the privacy of their medical records and banning an entire class of weapons and the ammunition magazines that make them effective is in their best interest.

Emotion.

It’s doubtful that the North would have entered into a war of emancipation without the phenomenal success of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s tale of Eliza’s escape from slavery was the best-selling novel of the 19th century, at a time when books were mass media. It made slavery “real.” It moved men’s hearts.

Just as the Sandy Hook spree killing moved a nation—and opened the door to civilian disarmament.

It’s time to face facts: the “debate” over gun control is not about facts. It’s about emotion. It’s about twenty murdered children lying on the blood-stained floor of an elementary school. Without their grisly, horrific, unconscionable death the gun control industry wouldn’t have squat. Nothing. Nada. And they know it.

Which is why they will be waving the bloody shirt with gusto over the next week. The White House’s decision to “turn over” the President’s weekly address to the parents of a child cut down at Newtown is only the latest gambit in an ongoing, increasingly hysterical campaign to overwhelm reason with emotion.

You’re going to see images of the Sandy Hook slaughter. You’re going to hear new details of the killing, in sickening detail. You’re going to see Colin Goddard, Gabrielle Giffords and other spree killing survivors telling their stories and calling for gun control with Jim Jonesian fervor.

And it just might work. Not only because Americans are “low information” voters who don’t have the time, inclination or analytical skills needed to separate fact from fiction, liberty from lies, Constitution preservation from statist propaganda. But also because Americans are deeply caring, loving people.

They feel for the parents at Sandy Hook. They want to do something in the name of the slaughtered children. No, strike that. Many maybe even most (but not all) Americans feel that not doing something would be wrong. And so they’re empowering the President and his gun control henchmen to “do the right thing.” Whatever that is.

What can gun owners do to counter the wave of emotion harnessed by civilian disarmament proponents, a wave that could sweep away their Constitutionally protected (in theory) right to keep and bear arms? What emotional rescue is available for besieged gun rights advocates?

None.

Sorry, but I can’t think of anything gun rights advocates could say or do to put the Sandy Hook spree killing into its proper perspective. I’ve called for the NRA to launch an immediate ad blitz featuring defensive gun uses. I’ve lobbied the GOA to create a similar sort of “I survived”-style media package. By now, it would be too little too late.

That said, there is one thing that can move a nation in the opposite direction: a government massacre. If the feds or a state’s police create another Ruby Ridge or Waco, where innocent Americans are slaughtered by their own government, if the Internet is “allowed” to report it, if the public sees exactly what an American police state looks like, the tide will turn.

Maybe.

Make no mistake: I don’t want it to happen. I pray to God it doesn’t. But I know it will. Not now. But eventually. If the government turns millions of American gun owners into criminals, how else can this play out?

I just hope gun owners can head this push for disarmament off at the pass. And if not that, if worst comes to worst, I hope that it’s not too late for a peaceful return to the values that Americans hold dear. Whether they know it or not.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

69 COMMENTS

  1. The problem with “low information voters” is they really don’t care about gun control. This is a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. We need to remain squeaky. We need to let our voices be heard loud and clear. Start here, a page with links to the e-mail contact info of every senator with a B or higher NRA rating. Let them know we won’t stand for any more gun control. let the know that our money is going to the opponent of anyone who votes for more gun control.

    http://www.shotmonster.com/senators.html

    • Even if we vote those out that caused this infringment on Liberty, it’s very unlikely that those that replace them would go so far as to repeal any stupid laws that gets passed. We need to win this fight now, not just in 2014.

  2. I’m almost with you, but I believe that there are people who, while they should not be in prison or on a Roman-style road gang, should also not be armed. Even with a spoon.

    Among ’em, the minor children of irresponsible parents.

    In an imperfect world, background checks of some type “make sense.” “Shall not be infringed” applies only to those who still have all their rights – such a of assembly, travel, et cetera.

    How to do this, however… we’ve yet to crack THAT nut. Brain scans…?

    I would ’twere otherwise, but we’ll have to acknowledge a Jefferson/Hamilton divide on this.

    You do, however, have my respect and support. Sir.

    • a gun-controlling gouvernment is a greater risk to the security and freedom of the people then any irresponsible oder mentally ill gun owner (or even all of them) could ever be. if the gouvernment has the power to controll gun ownership of irresponsible or mentally ill people, and all other gun controll efforts won’t work, one day everyone will be mentally ill or irresponsible.

  3. I saw this poor woman today and the others on 60 minutes, and they almost had me crying. I really feel bad for these parents and I don’t know how they’re able to get on with their lives. A few of them say that even if the new laws wouldn’t have stopped the shooter that something still needs to be done. I know that some of the parents are pro gun, but they aren’t given the chance to speak out about how they feel. We’ll never get them to understand that criminals don’t obey our silly laws, and that these evil scum will always get a gun no matter what stupid laws are passed.

    • I understand what you mean by: “Criminals don’t obey our silly laws” brother, I was just having a sort of debate with my mom about it and I kind of used a similar phrase, she quickly answered: “so you are saying, we shouldn’t have any laws because bad guys don’t respect any?”
      It took me some time to answer that, which at least made me realize how important is to be clear about our message, it’s difficult enough to fight emotion with reason, however, I still believe is possible if we find the right message.

      • To answer your mother’s argument, there should still be (well-enforced) laws against things like murder, theft, rape, etc. – crimes that directly harm someone or have a victim. On the other hand, CCW laws don’t make sense since you are not victimizing or harming anyone by carrying a weapon. So, laws for crimes with victims, no laws for “victim-less crimes.”

        One more thing: If a law is poorly enforced, or unenforceable altogether, it will only affect law-abiding citizens, who will follow it anyways, while criminals get away easily. (AKA most current gun laws)

        • There is a big difference between laws that prohibit harmful behavior and those that prohibit something for the heck of it. There are logical reasons for laws against murder, theft, or pouring waste oil into a creek full of trout. But owning a 20 round mag or short barreled rifle in itself, harms no one unless you intend to harm someone – which requires a violation of laws or moral norms. Maleum in SE vs. maleum prohibitum.

        • Didn’t you know? Laws against dumping waste oil in the creek are just ’cause all the stupid, tree-hugging libs are anti-business.

      • Russ. Your argument in the case of dumping toxic material is flawed. It would be equivalent only if the oil was illegal to own because somebody might dump it. I think most people on this forum support punishing people for illegal use of a gun (knife etc). I support any law that punishes a crime committed, just not those designed to protect people from their impulses, not those that punish gun owners who have not committed any crime because they might someday. Stiff penalties for violent or destructive behavior are a deterent. But laws that mistakenly attempt to limit access to tools that might be used for violent purposes, believing that without the tool the violent impulse disappears, are fundamentally flawed.

  4. I feel for this lady, I really do. But this is a classic case of emotion over logic. There are no specifics in her speech. What, exactly, are the policies under consideration that will keep guns out of the hands of madmen? What are the policies that will stop gang-bangers in Chicago from shooting each other, as well as innocents?

    Everyone involved has admitted the bills currently being considered would not have prevented Sandy Hook, much less Aurora, Tuscon, VA Tech and on and on.

    The one policy that might have helped? Armed teachers and staff in the school. No one will even mention that. Not in the Senate, anyway.

  5. 600,000 plus died in the American Civil War, and it was not about slavery. It was about states rights,, in fact a lot of northern people never supported the war , (Copper Heads) was large revolts and riots in N.Y. etc , a large amount of troops for the north were German and Irish right off the boats ,, the north won the war with human waves.. A little more history reading the USA wins all it’s wars with the Human wave,, that’s the real history…. so what’s the point here about gun control …. They don’t have the waves now… Let’s hope they don’t even try to go for the guns … It would make our civil war look like kids play ………

    • Not only that; it was about whether the Union or the Confederacy would control westward expansion.

    • Not about slavery?

      “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. ”
      – Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861

      • As satisfying as it is to indulge in the classic “Good vs Evil” dichotomy in regard to actual history, I’m afraid I have to pee on your parade a little. Stephens’ himself maintained that the transcription of his speech was heavily misrepresented by reporters sympathetic to the Union. Obviously he was lying, you’re sure to say, but somehow I doubt that a guy who would proudly declare such an abhorrent belief system as the cornerstone of his government would ever subsequently distance himself from it whether his side lost or not.

        And those overwhelmingly impoverished and uneducated rebels who died on the battlefields? Likely not slave owners, dude, and less likely to be willing to fight and die just for some rich asshole’s right to own them.

      • This proves nothing. Alexander Stephens was the Joe Biden of the Confederacy, and the speech that you are quoting was extemporaneous, and no actual written versions of it exist. The only account of the speech was written by a “reporter” who was well known for having rabid abolitionist sentiments, and, much like the main stream media of today in regards to gun control, colored his stories to match his adgenda. It would be better if you would do some research outside of “Lincoln cult/government gatekeepers” versions of the war and it’s causes before you assert flummery for fact. Such appeals to half-truths and emotion by so called “reporters,” and then by the duped citizenry who pass their lies along as fact are why we are having to defend our rights now, just as the Southerners were having to do then. And we may, very well, be forced into the position of having to secede to keep our rights as well. Jefferson Davis said in his great work “The Decline and Fall of Confederate Government,” that “the issues contended for by the Southern Nation were bound to reassert themselves, though at a later time and under different circumstances.” I think that time and circumstances are fast approaching.
        Here’s a little quote from ole’ “honest Abe” that might give you a hint as to why he decided to invade a peaceful nation who’s only interest in the United States, was to be left alone by them. When asked why he, (Mr. Lincoln), doesn’t just let the South go, he answered “who would pay for my tariff? That’s right, as with most wars from the beginning of time, this one was about money, and nothing more. All other issues, including slavery, were mere means to this lucrative end.

        • Whatever became of those secession petitions of just a short while back? I recall that many pollies were shaken by a movement not seen since the Civil War, as in “OMG these people are serious!!”

          Someone wrote that it’s going to take another Ruby Ridge or Waco to turn the gun control tide in the opposite direction. Given the arrogance of this regime, that’s more likely than not.

    • This. I was quite annoyed to see that our Dear Leader believes the BS that the Civil War was about slavery.

      Let’s hope they don’t even try to go for the guns … It would make our civil war look like kids play …

      Honestly, I’d prefer that they did over continuing our downward spiral. We won’t get real change in this country without another civil war and that won’t happen unless the government tries to seize guns.

    • There were other reasons for the Civil War but, fundamentally, it was fought to protect a way of life, an economic system, and a social structure that was based on slavery. Slavery held the Southern system together. Therefore, if not the only cause, protecting the institution of slavery was absolutely a primary reason for the Civil War. And the argument about the human wave is flawed too.

      • I am reading the IWO by Richard Wheeler a Marine who fought on IWO , We fight with human waves , same for WW1 , the Human waves of WW1 is what won the war, I have read all the books you can find on the Civil War, and just look at the attacking numbers of Union troops , vary one sided sample the odds most times was 3 to 4 Union troops to every southern… the battle facts prove this over and over… and did we not also do a surge war in Afghanistan,,, and let us not forget our D-Day human wave attacks…….History is bad …We can learn here… and anyone dumb that starts a Civil War now … Well let’s talk many millions dead… that is why NO GUN CONTROL EVER!!!!!!

    • The Civil War was absolutely about state’s rights! Thank you for pointing it out! Because its my right to enslave a population based the notion of white supremacy. You gotta love southern hospitality… “Come on in out of that heat missus, we got some brand new rolled cigarettes and chilled tea being made by the slaves right meow!”

  6. You know, I am still for background checks, even (a never going to happen) universal background check where in no record of the gun or that a sale even happened would be required (sort of like a cashier looking at your DL to check your age). And then I also believe that only certain specific violent crimes should carry a prohibition, and such would be part of conditions of parole, or else part of the sentence itself. Rather than the overly broad “any offense that could carry a sentence over a year”

    But I am starting to to to the view that background checks are wrong, not because there aren’t people who shouldn’t be prohibited, but because the people who have not lost their rights through grave offenses should not be treated as criminals. A man is released on parole. He is required to retain his residence, stay within the state of New York (and seek permission to change residence or visit outside state). He is barred from associating with other members of the gang he belonged to. All of this may be very reasonable. Being on parole means he is still serving his time in a way, and so his freedoms are still forfeited by his grave actions.

    But we do not enforce such laws by making everyone leaving NY state demonstrate that they are not on parole, nor do we stop random groups of people to make sure they are not prohibited from associating. Why? Because people have rights to travel, of free association. The criminal alone has forfeited such rights. To make the lawabiding have to demonstrate that they haven’t forfeited a right is backwards. Both because the burden is placed indiscriminately on all, though only a few have warranted restriction, and because it treats the exception as the rule. Most people have not raped, or robbed, etc.

    So, instead, it is far more reasonable to allow the free exchange of goods here, no hinderance in purchasing, but, just as a parolee who violates his conditions by heading out of state gets sent back to prison, with additional time, someone who has truly done a grave crime, and violates his firearm prohibition, should be punished severely (with the normal caveats- e.g., in California the courts have ruled that a felon may possess a gun in the case of immediate and imminent threat to himself or others. cf. People v. King- and with the ability to restore such rights, either partially or completely- if the crime committed was so bad as to mean that should never happen, then why isn’t he still in prison as a danger to society?)

  7. Don’t think of this as waving a bloody shirt. Think of it as politicians piling up dead bodies to stand on to reach a political goal.

    These people are gouls. They look forward to gaining an advantage when the inevitable next mass-murder takes place.

  8. Nobody listens to the President’s radio address or the Republican response. They are just forums to put out talking points. Do you really think low information voters listen to radio at all? If it can’t fit on a 140 character tweet nobody is listening.

  9. How about…

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/01/daniel-zimmerman/chris-wilden-saves-three-kids-with-his-gun/
    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/01/daniel-zimmerman/chris-wilden-saves-three-kids-with-his-gun/
    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/robert-farago/armed-fathers-protect-jewish-elementary-school-not-shown/
    http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/18/interview-suzanna-hupp-survivor-of-lubys-mass-shooting-argues-against-gun-control-saying-texas-gun-law-left-her-defenseless/

  10. There are some very thoughtful comments here, and it is encouraging to see some folks that think some compromise might be in order. To be honest, I do not own a gun, but I have certainly handled and fired many over the years, including a tour in the Air Force.
    Requiring a background check in order to keep firearms out of the reach of imbalanced people should be a priority in this country. But in order to do that, a persons medical history has to be made available to the government entity performing the check. Well, that goes against our existing privacy laws, and most will not be in favor of a change like that.
    Disarming the American public, while extremely unpopular, is also completely unrealistic, and I think most people would agree. But making it harder to purchase a firearm for those who have mental illness issues should be a priority. And don’t say the criminals will ignore the law – of course they will. But how many mass shooters were already criminals? How many of them had served time or been convicted of felonies? Until they committed their horrible acts, they were technically law abiding citizens.

    • You haven’t convinced me of jack$hit John. Not one inch to the grabbers. Not one inch.

    • I’m also a law abiding citizen with no criminal record. I’ve been prescribed antidepressants in the past. Do I then have “mental health issues”? Should I be forbidden my right to self-defense for all time now? Should I dread ever seeking psychiatric assistance again over that uncertainty?

      Based on the anonymous whim of a bureaucrat?

      Based on you feeling bad about the acts of a (literal) 1-in-100-million crazy?

      • Well, yes, you do. . . or, rather, did have mental health issues. No, you shouldn’t be forbidden the right to self defense–IF you have been examined by a mental-health professional and declared to be no longer subject to depression to the extent of needing medication for it.
        Yes, you should (in our current climate) dread seeking psychiatric assistance again. If you want to keep your right to firearms, you had best avoid any implication of mental illness.

        And, yes, the whole thing is a mess. When do-gooders legislate about things they know nothing about, they will not differentiate any more clearly between deep psychosis and mild depression than they do between machine guns and ‘assault weapons.’

        • Perhaps he never had “mental health issues”. The issue goes far deeper than differentiation between deep psychosis and mild depression.

          Antidepressants have been prescribed for many things that none of us would consider should make one unfit for firearms ownership. Would any of us think that someone with chronic pain or insomnia should be cleared by a mental health professional before being “allowed” to posess a firearm? What about a smoker that wanted to quit, but needed some assistance to do so? Antidepressants are prescribed for all these non-mental health issues, and the idea that someone should be restricted from firearms ownership merely by taking them for conditions like these is frightening.

          But, as always, the anti-gun crowd doesn’t care about facts; they need the emotion to provide them with the opportunity to advance their cause.

        • This “logic” is what has us in this situation in the first place. Casually discarding 90+% of the facts for assumption.

          Being prescribed antidepressants means that someone prescribed you antidepressants. It doesn’t mean ANYTHING else.

          I would like to point out to you:

          1. That prescription drugs are a multi-BILLION dollar industry. There’s plentyof incentive for them to push for more people to be using drugs instead of other methods to deal with issues, because pills are used up and must be replaced. More profit.

          2. According to even M.D.s I know, the drug companies (Big Pharma) not only has infiltrated medical school and psych schools and brainwashed these people into believing that they have the options of surgery or pills, and almost nothing else.

          3. This is evidenced by the massive amount of swag and schmoozing that M. D.s’ I have talked to report concerning drug companies and their salespeople.

          4. It is further evidenced by the fact that doctors are much more likely to walk in for 0.5 to 5.0 minutes, and prescribe pills – than do anything else. (My last emergency room visit was life threatening [food poisoning] and my total time with a doctor: 35 seconds. I asked them to help me with severe stomach cramping. They responded by giving me five different prescriptions, only one of which turned out to be useful, and by the time I got the prescription filled, it wasn’t even necessary.)

          5. Psych nurses I have spoken to tell me that psychiatric prescription givers are not trying to do anything anymore except push pills.

          6. In all of this, nobody is trying to find out what’s wrong with the person, anymore, they just assume the issue is XYZ (e.g. “I seen this a thousand times before.”) and throw pills at it. When I was 18, I was diagnosed by a GP with major depression and prescribed an antidepressant, which did stop me from being depressed, but it also stopped me from connecting to my emotions at all. It also made me wonder, who am I? Am I this person who’s in such emotional pain all the time, or this person who is emotionally numb because of these pills? Over time I discovered, quite by accident, that my issue was my diet: I was eating too much in the way of simple carbohydrates, and not enough protein. When I balanced my diet, all depression went away. I haven’t been on antidepressants in 18 years, and I have never had a problem that eating some protein (in the case of brain chemistry imbalance) or just going to bed (in the case of traumatic news) did not fix since then. Did ANY of my doctors even try to figure out the cause of my depression? No. They just threw pills at it. Am I mentally incompetent, or unbalanced? No, I just happened to have an accidental brain chemistry imbalance because at the time I was being too damned lazy to take the time to eat well. Sounds like a lot of Americans.

          7. This is on top of the fact that “antidepressants” are prescribed for all sorts of things that have nothing to do with depression.

          8. And the fact that I have seen cases where two doctors of the same field disagree completely on a psych diagnosis.

          So you can’t know jack scheise just because someone was prescribed an antidepressant. Other than that someone was prescribed an antidepressant. Assuming that A) the prescriber is competent, B) is correct in their diagnosis, C) is correct in their prescription, D) is prescribing something that is necessary (as opposed to simply “the easy way out” so they can get on to the next patient, and pay their insurance premiums) and E) is prescribing the drug for something that has to do with mental stability, is a lot of assumption.

          Don’t give me this crap about someone being mentally incompetent or unstable just because they were prescribed antidepressants.

    • John: My rights don’t begin where your feelings end. Just because you’ve been swayed by the propaganda and failed to see this legislation for the Trojan Horse that it is, doesn’t mean that others on here will cave to your inane shilling.

  11. Why stop at having the parents of dead kids shill for gun control? I’m surprised Obama hasn’t had their bodies stuffed and mounted in little coffins in the WH briefing room. If we are going to use the corpses of children to advance a political cause why not go balls out. Obama could even get his Hollywood pals to rig some animatronics or CGI effects so they could “speak beyond the grave” on the need for a totally unrelated gun control bill. Hell, they could even have them “pop up” out of their coffins like the Crypt Keeper in Tales From the Crypt. Or how about they could get in a pyschic and “channel” their dead kids to speak on the need for more gun control…

    Look, I understand (even condone) letting victims of crimes speak for/against gun control measures. Hell, our side even had women rape victims. But the shameless exploitation of human tragedy to further a political agenda is absolutely sickening. I don’t blame these parents a bit. They are understandably upset and looking for damn near any form of solace in their grief. I completely blame Obama and company for shameless exploitation.

    • So it’s okay for the parents to speak out, but if the President gives them the forum to do so, because he agrees and is pushing that view, then it’s wrong? So if children are used in any way to further a political outcome it’s wrong? I think you need to look at our history a little bit. How about the whole “Just Say No” campaign?

      • If the president only allows the antis to speak on his forum, you bet its wrong. He’s using my tax dollars to promote a slanted message intended to remove my rights.
        No, I expect that children will always be exploited. But one side of this argument accuses the other of apathy, and patiently waits for more death to exploit politically. But make no mistake, they’ll fail to notice evidence showing that guns make everyone safer.

  12. We’re winning; on facts, on logic, even maybe on emotion and patriotic fervor. I usually love your articles Robert, but this sounds like a wish to have a bloody shirt of our own to wave and I can’t agree with that tact.
    We have the constitution, we have our principles, if we ever lose for lack of sensationalism then lets to go war. . . but don’t ever let us wave the bloody shirt and decent to the level of the intellectual nonentities we’re opposed to.

    I’d rather wear my own bloody shirt than use someone else’s to advance my political ideology.

  13. We’re going to see new Sandy Hook pictures? Will we now see CCTV videos of a young killer shooting his way into the school? If those existed, why haven’t we seen them?

    And are we going to see photos of students being evacuated? Besides the single one, of fifteen or so children in a line? With all the photographers there, and 700 children in the school, why is there only one picture?

      • John, you don’t find me swimming upstream at HuffPo. WTF do you think you are going to accomplish with our crowd? Not one inch, Bubba. Not one inch.

  14. When logic has seeded to emotion, all that is human within us dies. Life is cruel, from the moment you are born you are condemned to death. What is unacceptable in life is the idea that we should forfeit our lives so willingly. Even a dog is entitled to defend it’s life when threatened. Why is it then that these massacre victims have been legally stripped of this right by the Gun Free Zone Act of 1990. As long as the public continues to support this slaughter house of a law they share responsibility for ever victim. Repeal this blood soaked legislation, which elevates the criminal while condemning the innocent.

  15. I saw a few snippets of this woman and I felt sympathy for her loss and pain. I also felt revulsion that her words were just emotional parroting of the same lies and distortions based on emotionalism and devoid of any logical reasoning. The “gun control ” prohibitions being advanced in Congress and in the States (many enacted) since Newtown and the Gun Rights Infringement Laws already on the books are roughly analogous to Banning the Right of Free Speech just because some yahoos yelled “Fire!” in several different crowded theaters and people got killed in the ensuing panics. If you are trampled to death or permanently injured in a stampede it’s no different than being shot to death or permanently injured in gun-involved crime. Rights are more precious to Human Freedom than lives lost because of insane criminal activity. Like the Poor, Criminals will always be with us. The Laws that infringe upon our Rights to own effective means of Self-Defense only enable the Criminals to kill us as they please, when they please. for whatever reason they please, and that includes children in schools. Emotion based pleas to further Infringe on our Second Amendment Rights (and I mean every American Citizen irregardless of their choice to own firearms or not) are a dismissal reason and logic and should be discarded as any semblance of “common sense” discussion. This emotion based dislogic has got to be called out for the useless crap it is.

  16. I lost any and all empathy for the Newtown parents and other afflicted when they allowed themselves to be used by these charlatans in order to wipe their shoes on the Constitution. FOAD.

    Call me an evil heartless bastard all you want, but your “grief” is soulless, false and self-serving the moment you appear on TV to shove a fear-based political agenda down the country’s throat.

    • This, what I see is rotten suffering people that want to visit suffering on everyone. Like the brady’s, they want everyone to be helpless like them. Randy

    • I completely agree with you. I feel bad for the children and what they had to go through but f these parents. After using their situation to trample on my rights I wish them all the grief in the world. They aren’t the first people to lose someone they loved in a tragedy.

      Ive been thinking of printing out a giant picture of Adam Lanza with a caption to something of the effect “The democrats number one hero! He made the ultimate sacrifice so they can further their agenda.”

  17. Through the media they have simplified the fight.

    The evil NRA who doesn’t even listen to their members (the 90% support back ground checks deal) against innocent children’s lives.

    Fair or correct? Of course not but it seems to really work for them.

  18. These emotion based pleas for more “Gun Control Laws” are useless crap and need to be called-out, as such. The Right to defend your family and yourself is more important than the few lives lost by Criminal activity. That’s harsh, but true. Those lives lost in Newtown could have been saved by armed Teachers or Administrators.

    • Why is the vast law-abiding majority of gun owners being punished for the actions of a depraved lunatic? This makes no sense in terms of crime prevention, so the answer has to be that tragedy is exploited for the purpose of class warfare, a fundamental belief of progressives. The class under attack are gun owners, the class doing the attacking are progressives.

      Google “Kulaks” for more information.

      • ‘Progressives” is just a sanitized/propagandized term for Communists who want to impose their will on everyone else, so yeah, it’s Class Warfare…the Marxist Progressive Totalitarian Class against the Class composed of anyone who wants to exercise their Natural Rights to think freely for themselves, speak freely for themselves, decide freely for themselves, act freely for themselves and defend themselves against crime and oppression. BTW thanks for the “kulaks” reference. Good information.

  19. This woman suffered a horrible loss, but that’s no reason WE THE PEOPLE should have our rights taken. There is nothing common sense about what the dems want. They say we don’t want to take your guns, yet in New York, they have already illegally done that, and their law hasn’t even been on the books 3 months. Just as the dems have said, “never let a tragedy go to waste”. We must hold our govts feet to the fire, esp the 16 republicans who voted yes to move this crap forward.

  21. Emotion is the absolute worst thing about humanity. It has enabled the worst atrocities this world has ever seen. Human emotion is the proof that the creator has a dark sense of humor.

  22. We, the citizens who stand up for our unalienable right to keep and bear arms, have a few advantages of our own.

    First and foremost, I have talked to countless armed citizens who outright reject the notion that government will come and take their guns. Of course it is discouraging that people refuse to consider the possibility. That said, I can guarantee you that most of those armed citizens will not roll over if government does come to confiscate. They simply have to see it to believe it. But once they believe it, it will be a really bad day for the people going door-to-door to confiscate.

    Second, we have the Internet. When Waco happened, the only source of information and actual video of the event was the mainstream media. This enabled the power brokers to portray the event as a righteous law enforcement action against two-bit criminals. Today, practically everyone has cell phones with video recorders. And citizens will be able to share their videos via the Internet. This will provide hard evidence for the masses. That means those people in the, “I have to see it to believe it.” crowd will activate.

    The Internet provides another key factor: the ability to organize and operate in grand scale. Let’s consider an unconstitutional government confiscation scenario. Twenty years ago, an armed citizen who had the will to resist the confiscation might yield because they recognized that their singular action would be in vain — for no one would know about it. Today, armed citizens who have the will to resist can organize and resist in unison. This has much more potential impact and, hence, incentive for resistance minded armed citizens to actually resist.

    Finally, thanks yet again to the Internet, basic research on civic matters is easy. If someone had told me about a liberty concept in the Federalist Papers 20 years ago, I quite honestly would not have gone to the trouble to go to a large library and look for the source. Today, it takes less than one minute to find such sources in your own home or office. This is a big deal. We can confidently inform people who operate on logic and facts rather than emotion. That means we can easily win over people that we would have required much more effort to win over two decades ago.

    The status quo has worked to the advantage of the power brokers of yesteryear. The status quo will actually work against them now — they just don’t realize it yet.

    By the way, if you don’t believe what I typed above, just look at the recent push in the state of Illinois to ban everything under the sun. The Illinois legislature operated under the old paradigm that they could quickly and quietly enact bans. Within a day or two, tens of thousands of people learned of the ban via the Internet, organized via the Internet, and responded via the Internet (with e-mails) and promptly squashed the legislation. Twenty years ago, that legislation would already be law. This was just a preview of what is yet to come.

  23. “You’ve probably noticed, I’m not the President…” I knew there was something different. “As a citizen, I’m here at the White House” Actually they don’t let us common folk on the tours anymore…just those seeking to push Obama’s agenda…

  24. The 2A tide turned in our favor with Ruby Ridge and Waco, when even the dumbest of low-information voters were able to see with their own eyes that the government had no qualms about murdering American citizens, including children.

    The left was praying for their own Ruby Ridge, and they got it in Newtown. Soon, swollen with power and hubris, the left will launch another Ruby Ridge. They would rather murder Americans “under the radar,” but they just can’t help themselves. Power corrupts.

    Just pray that the next Ruby Ridge doesn’t happen at your home, and that the resulting mountain of bodies is comprised of federal Gestapo.

  26. It’s a trap!

    Francine Wheeler, the Newtown mom giving Obama’s weekly radio address isn’t the impartial victim she appears to be.

    Her maiden name was Francine Lobis (and as recently as two months ago was calling herself Francine Lobis-Wheeler), here is her wedding notice in the New York Times from 2001 that states she worked at that time as personal assistant to Maureen White, the finance chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/style/weddings-francine-lobis-david-wheeler.html

    http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/nhregister/obituary.aspx?n=benjamin-andrew-wheeler&pid=161791434#fbLoggedOut

  27. The very LAST thing we should be doing when we are mourning, or suffering an emotional trauma or shock, is making major decisions. That’s when we are at our most emotional. And our least rational, and sensible.

    So what sense does it make to immediately react to a school shooting by passing laws? It’s action based on emotion. It’s irrational decision making. It’s a bad, bad idea. This is a big part of why we have waiting periods for purchasing guns. But we don’t have any waiting period on passing laws! And look what happens. What happened after 9/11 is a good example of that…

    Common sense tells us that when you’re emotionally overbalanced… and unbalanced… you don’t go making major, lasting decisions. Or taking actions based on those decisions. Otherwise, you get yourself and everyone else in trouble.

Comments are closed.