“Like the broader Republican Party, the pro-gun movement is now dominated by slash-and-burn extremists who are ideologically extreme, disdainful of compromise, and incapable of critical, long-term thinking. There will come a day, probably sooner rather than later, when events like ‘Guns Save Lives Day’ will no longer be viable fundraisers, when changing demographics will result in an American public that is totally offended and alienated by such antics. Alan Gottlieb and his ilk might be bloody rich by that point, but they will also be decidedly out of business.” – Josh Horwitz, What ‘Guns Saves Lives Day’ Tells Us About the Pro-Gun Movement [at huffingtonpost.com]
I hope Josh encounters some underpriviledged youth arned only with a bludgeon soon.
It would be a pity if that happened to ol’ Josh. Would break my heart.
JOsh – word of advice. . . . cut some calories and get some more exercise. the third chin is not a good look for a man your age, esp one who is expected to be the face of “sensible gun laws”. m’kay?
No need for the American Public to get offended by my PERSONAL choice to own guns and take responsibility for my own defense. I’m the the one that should be offended when you take (or try to) my 2nd amendment rights away.
I am so sick of “compromise” being touted as a virtue. Compromise always benefits the party in the wrong. If you owe me nothing, and I demand that you owe me $100.00, it is no virtue that I am willing to accept $50.00, and it is no vice that you are unwilling to compromise.
“ideologically extreme”
I didn’t realize we were extremists for continuously upholding our Constitutionally protected rights.
“disdainful of compromise”
It’s not compromise when our side gets absolutely nothing in return, especially when our rights are being violated. We already “compromised” in 1934, 1968, 1994…… nothing in return for us and statist still aren’t satisfied.
“incapable of critical, long-term thinking”
Wrong again, we are very aware of statist incrementalism. We remain vigilant.
“There will come a day, probably sooner rather than later, when events like “MAIG No More Names Magical Bus Tour” will no longer be viable fundraisers, when their lies, manipulation and overt hatred for freedom will result in an American public that is totally offended and alienated by such antics”
FIFY
“Bloomberg and his ilk will be seen for what they really are (traitors) by that point, and they will also be decidedly imprisioned”
FIFY
If i’m rich, do I mind being out of business?
“Common sense” gun control: 7 rounds-ok, 10 rounds-go to jail. Makes sense to me, or maybe not so much….
The Aristocrats!
Just keep rocking back and forth in the corner and telling yourself that buddy. Any day now this groundswell of pro gun political action and financial support is just going to dry up, and then, on that glorious day, then you can have your no-gun utopia. Just keep waiting. Feel free to occasionally dribble your nonsense in the meantime.
Well that’s interesting.
The only “no guns for you sign” I’ve seen up until now has been a 6″ tall x 4″ wide, with a crossed out revolver and “no guns allowed” in text. Non-compliant.
Alas, they’re a customer of mine.
can I have my CM9 instead of the PM9? Even with 2 .45 rounds the Double Tap is a bad breath distance weapon.
“…disdainful of compromise…”
That part got to me. I didn’t even finish reading the quote yet.
So we are, “disdainful of compromise,” are we? We can take you back through the decades of the number of compromises that we have made on state and federal levels and you still want more compromise. Let’s compromise and take something back then, shall we? How about we trade more stringent background checks that the ATF actually bothers to investigate and prosecute where necessary when they fail and to “compromise” we can legally purchase and build short barreled long guns without any extra paperwork or payment?
Does that sound like a fair compromise to you? I hope you say yes, that’d be wonderful. If for some odd reason you disagree then… well, how does it feel to be on the other end of the compromise this time?
Funny how whenever we compromise we just end up losing more of our rights with nothing to show for it. Then you ask us to compromise some more later. Yeah, that tends to make me disdainful of your useless propositions of compromise you come up with one after the other because your gun control legislation does one of two things: nothing, or it has adverse affects. There’s an Einstein quote that ought to be rattled off about insanity and doing the same thing over and over again…
The CBHG would know all about shameless exploitation of victims wouldn’t they?
Forget the CZ or Sig, WHERE CAN I GET MY MITTS ON THAT AMAZING SWEATER??
Dudes in Christmas sweaters. A little something for the ladies…
I usually avoid black Friday but I intend to see if there’s any good gun deals at Academy or Gander this year. Why not. I need a new handgun and rifle.
“ideologically extreme, disdainful of compromise, and incapable of critical, long-term thinking”
Pretty sure that’s an accurate description of the sitting President.
To a T.
Compromise? Okay, what is your side putting on the table? Getting to keeping some of our rights for the time being is not an offer. That’s the same “compromise” a mugger offers you when he says “your money or your life”.
Once we hear a real offer, then we can see. Somehow I don’t think anything will be forthcoming though.
I am so confused
So am I.
Now WHEN did these smurfs arrive from the planet Xenon?
The “—just not ALL arms” language is gone from EVOLVE’s Facebook About page.
“To trouble Trouble, when Trouble troubles.”
Or
“Sh!t happens”
To have a fighting chance if attack
If I were a handy DIY’er (which I am) and a purse user (which I am not), I would conceal thin aircraft cable inside the straps so it could not be broken or cut.
GET SOME!! WOOOOT! Best wishes from Colorado. May your results be at least as good as ours.
I’m a martial artist, and have significant training in practical self defense (CDT, if you’re curious).
My take away from my training is that a handgun is really good for winning fights.
A recent unrelated head injury confirmed that I do not want to be in a fist fight.
As Syrio Forel once said:
“There is only one god–and his name is Death. And there is only one thing we say to Death: ‘Not today.'”
Well, well, well. Now this brings the debate to police officers. Perhaps it is time they start honing their conversational skills so they can join our fight. Speaking of, I debated a civilian disarmament advocate at length the other day. The advocate marched out all the standard fallacies which I dismantled with actual facts. Of course the truth did not matter to him/her. I came to realize that an hour of debate was pretty much pointless. I also came to realize that all they are trying to do is quite literally shout down our right to defend ourselves. In order to avoid pointless debates in the future, I have settled on a fairly simple disarmament analogy. It may not be politically correct but I think it is necessary to get at least some people to see the point.
In a nutshell, civilian disarmament proponents:
(1) claim to have a “right” that they want to exercise
(2) demand that armed citizens yield to their “right”
(3) tell us we should accept it because it is good for them
(4) tell us we should accept it because it is good us
So let us apply the same exact argument to another situation. Imagine a man approaching a random woman. The man:
(1) states that he has a “right” to have sex
(2) demands the woman yield to his “right”
(3) tells the woman to accept it because it is “good” for her
(4) tells the woman to accept it because it is good for him
(And how is it “good” for her you might be wondering? Sex increases blood flow to the body, raises heart rate for improved cardiac health, releases beneficial hormones, tones muscles, improves feelings of well being and self-worth, relieves stress, etc.)
No one can argue that improving blood flow, cardiac health, increasing beneficial hormones, toning muscles, improving feelings of self, and relieving stress are huge health benefits to all citizens, both men and women alike. And yet no one in their right mind would demand that the random woman must therefore yield to the man’s “right” and submit to sex with him.
And yet this is exactly what civilian disarmament proponents are telling us. They:
(1) tell us they have a “right” to feel safe
(2) demand that we give up our firearms to satisfy their “right” to feel safe
(3) tell us to accept it claiming it will increase their safety
(4) tell us to accept it claiming it will increase our own safety
Even if those claims were true, it doesn’t change the fact that civilian disarmament advocates and the State are violating our lives just as a man who rapes a women violates her life — regardless of any claims about how it is “good” for one person or another.