I’m blogging from Bergstrom airport, deep in the heart in Texas. I’m about to fly to a city where “intellectuals” feel free to deride and denigrate the story of a woman’s armed self-defense against a thug armed with an eight-inch kitchen knife. Specifically, Eric Levitz of New York magazine.

Technically, it’s true that Hillary Clinton does not think “every woman has a right to own a gun.” The Democratic nominee does not want to repeal federal restrictions on gun ownership that prevent convicted felons, fugitives, or the clinically psychotic from purchasing deadly weapons. She also wants to deny women on the terror watch list access to firearms — as does Donald Trump. (The Republican nominee also wants police to shake down any suspicious-looking black people in Chicago for firearms.)

But Kristi McMains does not appear to fit any of those criteria and will almost certainly be allowed to carry a gun in Hillary Clinton’s America.

Question: how does Mr. Levitz define “Hillary Clinton’s America” (a scary turn of phrase if ever there was one)? Does HCA include New York City? Los Angeles? New Jersey? If it does, and Ms. McMains happened to live in one of these gun-rights-defiling locales, she would not be allowed to carry a gun.

Not “almost certainly.” Certainly. Because Ms. McMains and millions of other women can’t exercise their right to bear arms in large swaths of America right now. Not only has Ms. Clinton done absolutely nothing to stop these Second Amendment infringement zones, she’s declared her intention to expand them.

Ms. Clinton has publicly declared that she would like the Supreme Court to reverse their Heller decision, the ruling that struck down D.C.’s ban on handguns in the home. So, in Hillary Clinton’s America, in the very heart of her future dominion, women would not be able to keep and bear arms anywhere, at all, ever. Not to mention the gun control green light a Heller reversal would shine across HCA.

Still, this ad could have a big impact among the critical “extremely gullible millennials who think a woman’s right to choose an assault rifle is the civil-rights struggle of our time” demographic.

Mr. Levitz’s smug sarcasm reveals his effete intellectual snobbery, aimed here at Ms. McMains, the NRA, gun owners, and millennials. OK, “extremely gullible” millennials (don’t want to piss off millennials who might vote for HCA).

But Mr. Levitz got one thing right: gun rights are a civil right. The struggle to protect gun rights is the struggle of all time. For individuals like Ms. McMains and anyone who believes that America belongs to liberty loving individuals, not proto-tyrants and their sycophantic enablers.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

76 COMMENTS

  1. It’s impossible for progressives to argue or debate without becoming incredibly condescending. “Extremely gullible millennials”, as if a person born in a certain time frame is unable to think for them self or have a coherent, independent thought. They are the same way when it comes to minorities who are conservative/pro-gun. They talk down to them as if they are rubes who have been bamboozled and aren’t really able to see the horrible mistake they’ve made!

    • That’s because progressives belive their ideology and theirs alone is the solitary, final path all societies and civilizations must take in order to be prosperous, correct, and true. You know, kind of like how non-westernized Islam sees itself…

      • You fellers might want to reconsider dealing in absolutes when speaking about the people you are accusing of dealing in absolutes.

        • Uh, actually as a former anti-gunner, I can absolutely say that back then, between myself and the circles I ran in, yes, the concept was that anyone who wasn’t 200% liberal in every aspect was just completely wrong. There was a “good side and a bad side” and that absolutely simply went “D” and “R”.

          I grew up, and things are a whole lot more complex than that. And I (don’t really) hate to say it – the whole ‘assault weapons ban’, that being the emperor’s lack of clothing was what tipped the scales for me. For years I believed the (implied) line that ‘assault weapons’ were simply machine guns.

          When I found out that “my side” had been lying this whole time, (and that the whole issue on ‘assault weapons’ was about freaking plastic bits and cosmetics) – I began questioning more and more until I realized it’s not binary AT ALL.

          But for years, I can testify that pretty much everyone on the ‘hardcore liberal’ side absolutely thought that “republican/democrat” were absolutely synonyms for “stupid/smart”, “wrong/right”.

          It’s embarrassing that I ever thought that way, but I can at least chalk it up to being young and impressionable.

          I still believe in certain socially liberal things, but gun control I’ve realized is a farce. And the people who can’t take a second look at that and realize that it’s not absolute – are scary as hell to me; because what else do they believe without thinking?

          But seriously, it’s *you fellers* who are causing people on *your side* to say “hey wait a minute” with your ridiculous claims, like the idea that our major problem is “assault weapons” when all rifles combined account for the deaths of roundabout 250 people on a bad year. (Which means ‘assault weapons’ could easily be involved in less than 100 deaths a year. But no, gotta ban ’em, right?)

          Stop being so disingenuous – including saying that you just want to have a “conversation” on guns. You want to ban them and confiscate them; and anyone who disagrees even a little is a non-person and completely disposable.

          And when I discovered *THAT* about the Left, that’s when I began questioning it and slipping away from it.

          And I’m not the only one.

          With the way information spreads now, propaganda is easier to uncover as untruth. Not everyone is going to be in lock-step anymore (or ever again) with your manifesto and platform.

          Every political party better get used to that, and fast.

          Gun ownership is changing – but not in the way anti-gunners would like. The same old tired crap from the 1980s and 1990s isn’t going to stop that. (In fact, chances are, nothing will.)

  2. That “extremely gullible” millennial crack may well backfire on their collective smug condescending asses.

    Millennials as a group aren’t exactly happy with the Dem party and out of spite may ‘toss a spanner in the works’, to Brit speak.

    They see the kind of violence that can break out in their cities and just may decide tooling up is a rational response…

    • What spanner are you talking about, voting for Trump? Did you not see the backlash after the DNC leaks? Millennials are unhappy with the Democratic Party because Sanders, the more blatant and extreme of two Marxist traitors, lost the nomination. Let that sink in for a minute.

      • “What spanner are you talking about, voting for Trump?”

        NO. NO. NO.

        Clear enough? Something along the lines of this:

        “They see the kind of violence that can break out in their cities and just may decide tooling up is a rational response…”

        Geeze…

  3. “almost certainly be allowed to carry a gun in Hillary Clinton’s America” What a joke, she can’t carry a gun in Hillary Clinton’s New York

    • potentially would probably “almost certainly be allowed to carry a gun in Hillary Clinton’s America”, for a little while, maybe.

  4. “Extremely Gullible Millennials” are Democrats. New York Magazine is where Extremely Gullible Millennials go for their bi-weekly circle-jerk. Or is it a weakly bi circle-jerk? It’s impossible to tell.

    Non-Gullible Millennials can still be reached. It won’t be easy without offering them free sh!t, but it can be done.

  5. There was a poll… maybe… six months ago. I don’t have the time to find it just this moment but it found that the number 1 issue for young women was access to “reproductive health” (abortion and contraception) followed by… wait for it… access to firearms for self defense!

    That’s why the NRA ran this ad, because they know that access to a firearm for self defense in the #2 issue for young female voters.

    • A new demographic/special interest group has been identified – SWG (sluts with guns)? Magazines (print) to follow.

      If not for “Extremely Gullible Millennials” there would be no idiotic 20 something females moving to NYC

  6. Mr. Levitz conveniently fails to mention that Hillary Clinton’s definition of “the clinically psychotic” will include anyone who would want to own, much less carry, a firearm. (Such people are “clinically psychotic” by virtue of the fact that they own firearms.)

    • More to the point, you don’t have to be “clinically psychotic” to lose your gun rights for life. All you have to do is be admitted to a psychiatric facility as a threat to yourself or others, which includes people who are clinically depressed and can be successfully treated with medications.

    • She’ll define the term as broadly as she needs to in order to cram her socialist agenda down our throats. Trains headed for gulags will depart every hour. All aboard!

      • Unless the trains are stopped on the tracks for prolonged periods due to “inefficiency” in which case we can expect to see die-offs due to mass dehydration.

        • Rest assured that at least one Good Progressive will convince the HilaryJugend guarding the trains in the sidings to play water from fire hoses upon the freight cars. . . What do you think that they are, monsters?

      • In Hillary Clinton’s America, the trains to the gulags will be run by Amtrak, I’m sure. I’ll make my escape during the inevitable derailment.

        • I believe that the word ‘gulag’ is a bit hyperbolic. They will be called ‘death camps.’ Did I say ‘death camps?’ I meant ‘Happy Camps,’ where you will eat the finest meals, have access to fabulous doctors, and be able to exercise regularly.

  7. It is not “Hillary Clinton’s America”, it is “Hillary’s America”. It’s a movie, explains it all quite clearly.

  8. Interesting how those forward thinking hope for the future Millennials that helped usher Obama into office are now the “Extremely Gullible Millennials” after they avoid flocking to Hillary like mindless lemmings. Maybe they remember getting burned by Obama and sold-out by Bernie?

  9. We need ‘ common sense ‘ background checks on liberal rag writers BEFORE they are allowed to enjoy the First Amendment , after all , if it prevents one lie , or omission of fact ….. isn’t it worth it ???

  10. The New Yorker-aimed at extremely gullible leftards…FIFY. BTW I think the new NRA ad is great. Unfortunately most won’t see it unless they watch FOX or Outdoor/Sportsman channel(preachin’ to the choir)…

    • Preaching to the choir is okay. A lot of TTAG readers, who are the choir, will be voting for Hillary, just as they voted for Obama because “he’s not coming for our guns.”

      ‘Memba?

  11. Remember what they mean by “allowed to carry a gun” – they mean she might not get arrested for carrying an unloaded flintlock musket inside her own home, after having paid thousands of dollars and give through 15 months of bureaucratic hurdles, mandatory training, psychological screening, denials, and appeals.

  12. If only, If only these people could actually think and not fall for the brainwashed sheep mentality of “I need a gun to
    protect myself” groups.

    Statistically your 5x more likely to off yourself or murder a loved one with a gun than defending yourself from an attack with a weapon.

    Most people in America support gun control measures such as UBCs, magazine limits and restrictions against those who may have ties to extremist groups.

    Innocent people have to be unfairly snuffed out because having guns is more important than children or innocents to some people.

    The murder of innocent people regardless of sex, race, age or gender should not just be accepted as collateral damage to 2nd amendment rights.

    People are so concerned that an error could be made and they lose their gun. What about if an error is made and some innocent person loses their child? Shouldn’t that be given priority? You can always get the gun back, but these people will NEVER be able to get their friends or loved ones back.

    But we just accept that almost 100,000 Americans will be shot EVERY year, and we should do nothing to prevent it. If that’s what you mean by logic, I can see why TTAG and the NRA loves you brainwashed zombies–you are the perfect saps to be conned

    • We are thinking for ourselves and not listening to the elitist-left that only the government is trustworthy enough to wield deadly force.

      We do think about the lives lost because the elitist left doesn’t want undesirables to be able to carry a weapon for self-defense. This leaves them at the mercy of stronger or more numerous adversary.

      We do think about the history of gun laws in this country set up to deny lower classes the liberty of self defense and the effect that had on bigotry and oppression throughout the country.

      We also think about the fact that most gun deaths are suicides that while tragic do not provide reason to limit the rights of those who have done no wrong.

      We think about the fact that in critical situations, the government will leave citizens hanging in the breeze to defend themselves as after Katrina. That same government used its police to confiscate lawfully-owned guns from citizens to amke themselves feels safer while allowing chaos and crime to run rampant int the street.

      We also think about smug, self-serving sycophants who attack guns because it’s easier than going to the root of crime and violence.

      If anything, the NRA does not do enough. You are entitled to your opinion but I will support the constitution (all of it). I do it for the children.

    • “100,000”
      It’s 30,000 and the breakdown is as follows:

      Two-thirds are suicides. Well over 50% of remaining deaths are urban thugs, gang members, and other criminal trash offing each other. That leaves, ehhhh, +/- 5,000 deaths a year from shootings and plain old murder? In a country of 350,000,000 people, that’s less than ONE THOUSANDTH OF 1% of the total population. In the real world, we call that an irrelevant statistical anomaly, definitely not worth scrapping the Bill of Rights over, which by the way, isn’t subject to the democratic process in These United States.

      Go back to Australia.

      • Thanks, I’m making my 3rd visit there this month for vacation.

        Sad thing is Australians are still mourning for the innocent american lives that are lost everday including that of an innocent child which lost there lives by an NRA-sponsered school shooting and wonder why americans won’t budge on gun rights.

        After the 1996 tragedy, Prime minister howard enacted laws which saved human life and reduced gun violence in australia.

        Australia has had no mass killings ever since.

        And that country tends to have the best education, healthcare, economy and lowest gun homicides in the world, much lower than 3rd world crapholes like switzerland, new zealand and czech republic.

        • Daft though I be, and fully aware of the small effect any facts will have upon you, Australia has had FOUR mass shootings since 1996: Monash, 2002: seven shot, two fatally. Hectorville, 2011: Seven shot, three fatally. Hunt Family, 2014: Five killed. Sydney Siege, 2014: six wounded, two dead.
          Now, as for mere mass murders, without guns: Childers Palace, 2000: 15 burned to death, arson. Churchill Fire, 2009: 10 burned to death, arson. Lin Family, 2009: 5 dead, beaten to death. Quakers Hill, 20911: 11 burned to death, arson. Cairns, 2014: 8 children dead, stabbed.
          I’m so sorry; You are usually so accurate! What happened–did MomsAgainstEverything lead you astray?

        • “NRA sponsored killings…3rd world crap holes like Switzerland..” Wow. I didn’t think it was possible to smoke acid, but you have proven me wrong.

        • Why does anyone feed this troll? Having lived in Australia and having friends there, I can tell you first hand the country has become a more dangerous place in the last 20years.

        • If someone who is for real said NRA sponsored gun free zone school shootings, it would offend me as a member. Coming from this bullshitter it just blends into the rest of crap he keeps spewing. After pearls like 3rd world shithole Switzerland he lost last bits of his credibility.

      • “Why does anyone feed this troll?”

        Because it’s good practice for when we run into those kinds while out-n-about our daily lives.

        Call it argument practice…

    • “..Most people in America support gun control measures such as UBCs, magazine limits and restrictions against those who may have ties to extremist groups.”

      So if we can demonstrate that most people in America support shipping you off to a new country would you pack your bags? If not, why not?

    • THANK you for being the voice of reason, here! I, too, get my facts and figures from MomsAgainstEverything (https://www.facebook.com/momsagainsteverything); Without that breath of sanity on the InterWebs, where would you and I be?!
      It’s true: Statistically, every single human being (and puppies and kitties, too) who are exposed to guns is going to DIE! Most of them, sadly, will indeed be innocent, yet, still, they shall cease to be, and will shuffle off this mortal coil, bereft of life, to push up daisies. Every time someone signs up with the NRA, a fairy dies. Horribly.
      Every single day (24-hour Earth day, of course–I don’t know which planet you come from. Sorry to be Earthcentric.), eleventy-billion babies are gunmurdered by fully-semi-automatic 30 caliber magazine clip poison-bullet school-piercing assault weapons, some of them ghost guns.
      Ghost guns fire ghost bullets. Did you know that?
      My uncle was gunmurdered in his sleep by a ghost bullet from a ghost gun. Yep, killed him right there, in his jammies. Of course, as the ghost bullet didn’t leave a hole, we just thought he had a heart attack or something. The awful part is, the autopsy showed no evidence of his being gunmurdered, either.; I suspect the NRA had a hand in it.
      Thanks to you, and MomsAgainstEverything, we now know the truth!

    • *Citation Needed*

      This is of course for our resident troll that spews a lot of nothing without backing up their words. If you want a debate, post your data. If not, get bent and go back to tumblr or some other wonderful echo chamber you live in.

    • You can’t think for yourself because all you do is cut and paste some lame ass talk points like these on every pro 2A site you can. Do you even come back to see the responses eviscerating your dumb ass, or do you just move on to the next site so you can collect your daily libtard troll post quota from Soros?

      • “NRA sponsored school shooting…” Remember to take your meds buddy. Idiots like you are the reason we live in a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. It would be a scary country if we made decisions based on what the majority of people wanted.

    • Logical fallacies, paragraph by paragraph. (TL;DR summary: Your argument is crap, and I can prove it.)

      Paragraph 1 Fallacy: Personal incredulity.
      Your personal conclusions don’t invalidate the decisions of everyone else. As a matter of fact, I think your personal conclusions mark you as a farking moron…and even though I’m sure I’m right, that conclusion gives me no more basis to force you to carry a gun than yours does to demand that I disarm.

      Paragraph 2 Fallacy: False cause. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
      Statistics aren’t destiny. X number of people having done something to themselves with a gun doesn’t mean that any given individual (you or I, for instance) will therefore do that thing. (Rolls dice… Dang it, my number’s up. Guess I have to shoot myself now. Statistics, you know.)

      Paragraph 3 Fallacy: Bandwagon
      “Most people support…” has nothing whatsoever to do with the rightness of any law or argument. Most people in Germany tacitly supported the Nazis in WWII. Most people in America (to the extent that they knew it was going on) tacitly supported the Japanese internment camps in WWII. Were those good ideas?

      Paragraph 4 and 5 Fallacy: Appeal to emotion, plus ad hominem
      I could do the same to you. Why don’t you want to defend innocent children? Why do banks and politicians get armed protection while schools get nothing? They’re targets too, you know. Looks to me like you’d rather have pure, dead children than have them defended by any of those icky people with evil guns. The murder of innocent people should not be accepted as collateral damage of your anti-gun obsession.

      Paragraph 6 Fallacy: False equivalence
      These “errors” you speak of are not even remotely similar or related. Besides, what if some error takes away someone’s gun AND their life? Carol Bowne’s application to buy a gun in New Jersey was delayed for more than 90 days while she was being stalked by a violent man. On day 93, that man stabbed her to death in her own driveway. But it’s a good thing she never got a gun, because errors and innocent lives, or something.

      Paragraph 7 Fallacy: Black-or-white
      This isn’t an either/or situation. Plus, where on earth did you get that 100,000 number? It’s not “either all you normal, law-abiding people give up your stuff or thousands of people will die.” We do NOT accept that some enormous number of people will just get shot or that we shouldn’t do anything about it; that’s part of the reason why so many of us have guns. Because you don’t *have* to shoot people — and despite your stupid insistence to the contrary, thousands of people *don’t* get shot (or beaten to death or raped) every year, precisely because they had a gun.

    • “If only, If only these people could actually think and not fall for the brainwashed sheep mentality of “I need a gun to
      protect myself” groups.”

      If only these governments could actually think and not fall for the mentality of ‘I need to take away the citizens guns to protect myself’ groups.

      What do you hope to accomplish by continuing to change your name, Concerned?

      “Statistically your 5x more likely to off yourself or murder a loved one with a gun than defending yourself from an attack with a weapon. ”

      Absolutely, unequivocally wrong, guns are used to defend life and property something around half a million times a year, even the lowest estimates, by anti-gun groups, put the number at over 60,000, so unless you’re seeing 300,000 murders and suicides by firearm a year, you are completely full of shit.

      If you’re going to keep copypasting bullet points here, at least pick ones that aren’t easily proven to be bullcrap with google and 2 minutes of time.

    • I have a friend, she lives in Australia. She and her husband can’t go outside after sunset. By 7 PM every day, their front door is locked and they’re huddled in for the night.

      The two of them envy the fact that I can put a gun on my hip and deter crime just by standing on my front step.

  13. “Hillary Clinton’s America” I wonder if she’s already been fitted for her jackboots?

    • She has and James Comey is licking them each day. Tomorrow she’s being fitted for her brown shirt. They’re holding off on the pants until they can locate enough fabric to cover her walrus sized ass.

  14. The Kristi McMains commercials that the NRA is running are an absolute abomination. While I applaud Ms. McMains for executing her 2A rights to defend herself, she is every bit as guilty as the NRA in this blatantly false, deceptive advertising campaign. These commercials are indeed aimed at uninformed idiot voters. What Mr. Levitz implies, however, is that these uninformed idiots are all millennials, which I find highly offensive. While I’m not exactly a millennial (Gen X, if that’s still a thing), many of my friends and family are, and most of them are not the uninformed, drooling morons that Mr. Levitz and the NRA seems to think they are.

    While I can’t speak to the advertisements that may be running in other parts of the country, every one that I’ve seen targeted at Missouri politicians has been completely false. In two of these commercials, Ms. McMains accuses Governer Jay Nixon and Senate candidate Jason Kander of voting against womens’ rights to defend themselves in their own homes. Think what you may of either politician (I happen to like Nixon, but would never vote for Kander in a million years), these allegations are completely untrue. Permitless carry has absolutely nothing to do with a woman’s right to self-defense. Ms. McMains, and other women who may legally purchase a firearm, are and would have been perfectly able to defend themselves in their homes, with or without permitless carry. Additionally, unlike some states, it is not at all difficult to obtain a carry permit in Missouri. So a veto or a vote against permitless carry has nothing to do with denying women the right to self-defense.

    Nothing makes me angrier than political spin and deception, especially when it’s designed to tug at the heart strings and elicit unfounded emotion. I don’t like being lied to, and I don’t like being manipulated. Especially when it’s so blatant that it insults my intelligence. I love guns and freedom, but I value integrity equally. By having none of the latter, the NRA has lost at least one potential member for life.

    • Really. Clinton is on record saying she wants “Australian style” gun control. No handguns, most rifles gone, expensive permits for bolt actions, mandatory turn ins.

      You don’t think that inhibits a woman’s right to self defense?

      • I wasn’t commenting on the ads directed at Hitlery. I was commenting on the deceptive ads directed at Missouri politicians. I thought I said that clearly in my original post. Did I not?

        Hillary doesn’t want anyone to be able to defend ourselves (unless she’s just saying that to get applause). She’s already said she will nominate SC justices that will try to overturn Heller. Unfortunately, Trump will nominate justices who will try to overturn Roe v Wade. That’s why neither of them will get my vote.

        • You have made that clear, we get that, and you are still digging your hole deeper from where I sit.
          I’m pro-gun and pro-choice. If I have to vote between the two, I’m going to have to vote in support of the right that is enumerated in the Bill of Rights as opposed to a derived “right”. Do you really believe justices appointed by Hillary would stop at overturning Heller? If so, Gary Johnson has some land in Aleppo (it’s a lake up in Iowa, right?) he’d like to sell you…

    • I get your point regarding political ads being misleading on both sides, but get off your damn high horse. The fact that you immediately go to questioning the intellect of others (thereby assuming the posture of the person having the superior mind) has me ready to call bullshit on you.
      Don’t want to spend $35 next year on the NRA? Okay. Bye…

      • When someone looks out from the TV screen and tells me a politician voting against or vetoing a bill for permitless carry is preventing women from being able to defend themselves in their own homes, that is a blatant lie. Arguably, it could hinder their ability to protect themselves when they are away from home – that is if they find the cost of the permit or the Saturday spent in class prohibitive. But no one needs a permit to purchase a gun and keep it in their home. Home carry IS permitless carry. So when someone lies so blatantly, yes, I must assume that anyone who would believe those lies is an idiot. I’m not worried about falling off my high horse. The view isn’t always pretty up here, but at least I can see.

        • Your statement that nobody needs a permit to purchase a gun and keep it in their home is not true in every state or locale. Might be the case in Missouri, but it isn’t up the road in Minnesota (handguns and scary black rifles require a permit to purchase) and sure as hell doesn’t apply in plenty of other states (like NY, or CA, or MA, or…).
          Given your supposed Libertarian bent I also find your comments about the cost or time to obtain a permit to carry a bit, well, smug. Smug and ironic given my understanding of Libertarianism…but I digress.
          Enjoy your view, though I bet it must be lonely up there.

    • I guess I will bite.

      Carry permits are an infringement. They are frequently used to infringe on rights in many places.

      Even in the better states, they often cost money. A poll tax would have people up in arms (heh), but permits do not, for some reason.

      Calling the ads blatant lies is going a little far.

      Are you mad about it because you, like your cited politicians, are against permitless carry? Why? How does me having to pay for a permission slip stop assholes from illegally carrying for malicious purposes?

      • Actually, I’m a Libertarian. Not too thrilled that Johnson chose Weld for his ticket, but still voting for him over either of those other idiots. Call me a Libertarian Troll if you want, but don’t call me a leftist. I make too much money to be a progressive, and also not enough money to be a progressive.

    • Nixon is a steaming turd – 1. Is a card carrying progressive demtard. 2. Has vetoed legislation that would remove unconstitutional restricting on firearms in Mo.

    • ‘Ms. McMains, and other women who may legally purchase a firearm, are and would have been perfectly able to defend themselves in their homes, with or without permitless carry.’

      I guess you haven’t noticed that women are no longer chained to their stoves, ironing boards and taking children all day. They actually have occasion to not only leave the home, but to actually hold jobs!

      • I’ve lived my entire life in a dual-income home. My mom always worked and my wife has always worked. I have the utmost respect for women [certain evil bitches notwithstanding]. It was the NRA’s decision to specifically target these politicians for “voting against the right of women to defend themselves in their own homes”. That, as I pointed out, is a lie.

        I realize that women frequently leave their homes. Does the NRA?

  15. We are thinking for ourselves and not listening to the elitist-left that only the government is trustworthy enough to wield deadly force.

    We do think about the lives lost because the elitist left doesn’t want undesirables to be able to carry a weapon for self-defense. This leaves them at the mercy of stronger or more numerous adversary.

    We do think about the history of gun laws in this country set up to deny lower classes the liberty of self defense and the effect that had on bigotry and oppression throughout the country.

    We also think about the fact that most gun deaths are suicides that while tragic do not provide reason to limit the rights of those who have done no wrong.

    We think about the fact that in critical situations, the government will leave citizens hanging in the breeze to defend themselves as after Katrina. That same government used its police to confiscate lawfully-owned guns from citizens to amke themselves feels safer while allowing chaos and crime to run rampant int the street.

    We also think about smug, self-serving sycophants who attack guns because it’s easier than going to the root of crime and violence.

    If anything, the NRA does not do enough. You are entitled to your opinion but I will support the constitution (all of it). I do it for the children.

  16. And again, still, a reportedly large group of people speaking poorly of, and directly to, an even larger group of people that are supposed to be dangerous and unstable.

    If the gun owners were as prone to violence as the NYT suggests then how are there any anti-gunners left in the country?

  17. We don’t live in President Obama’s America and will not live in either Hillary’s or Trump’s America. We live in our America. America is our country it is not Hillary’s or any other high horse politicians’. America belongs to the people. This guy isn’t worth the air he breathes.

    • Trump has never been elected to ANYTHING. How is he a “politican” by just stepping up to the plate?

  18. I am not an “extremely gullible millennial” hence my desire to keep firearms and the right to carry them. Gullible is the idea that the government can and will protect you, and that they’ll look out for your best interests no matter how much power they get.

  19. Evil exists no matter where you are.
    I worked near Childers for years and transferred about two years before the arsonist killed 15 people. My then neighbor was the first firefighter into the building. No one called for petrol to be banned. It is the person who does the killing

    As I have commented here before Australia is not gun free just a paperwork nuisance if you are a legal owner. Background check and 30 days wait usually for a first firearm. Faster for second etc as you have done checks already.

    Criminals don’t do background checks. But politicians and antis ignore that.

  20. I don’t think Millennials are all that gullible.

    Every single one of them that I talk to tells me they never expect to see a dime of Social Security money they’re funneling down the federal rat hole from their paychecks. The vast majority of my generation thought in their 20’s that they’d see all their Social Security money when they got old.

    So I’m not going to start claiming that their generation is “gullible,” when my generation is about to get pretty well screwed.

Comments are closed.