Personal Liberty Digest™ will be upgraded this weekend to reflect a dynamic new look and mobile-friendly viewing to enhance your experience! Plus, we'll be providing even more of the compelling content you've come to expect, delivered in a whole new way!

  Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Moms Demand Action, A Group For Lying Gun-Hating Morons

April 18, 2013 by  

An organization calling itself Moms Demand Action is one of the latest nonsensical formations conceived from the highly emotive national debate over gun control. A study of some of the group’s recent efforts to influence public perception reveals a strategy that packs a one-two punch that’s equal parts “do it for the kids” and utter fallacy.

The Organization

Personal Liberty Digest™ tried unsuccessfully to reach Shannon Watts, the organization’s founder; so in fairness, we will assume that the woman is a well-meaning mother who is genuinely concerned about the welfare of her children (as almost any parent is at almost any moment in time).

Because we didn’t have a chance to pick her brain in an interview in time for this article, consider the following statement pure speculation from the perspective of a conservative gun nut: Watts must be one of the most hopelessly misguided and reactionary human beings on the face of the Earth. One also might venture to cogitate about the likelihood of her being a true, true believer in hope and change and the liberal idea of American utopia in which all people frolic in fields of flowers with no threat of danger.

Of course, maybe she’s just a bored soccer mom taking up the hobby of being a busybody — a hobby she justifies by hinting that it is borne out of her care for her own children and the danger that a 2nd Amendment-enabling society poses to their well-being.

Here’s how Moms Demand Action describes the situation:

Horrified and heartbroken by the events in Sandy Hook, mothers of the United States are coming together to fight for tougher gun control measures. The group’s founder is Indiana mother of five Shannon Watts. Now thousands of moms have joined her. We’re growing by the day with more members and dozens of state and local chapters.

Together, we hope to prevent more moms from experiencing the pain and heartache of those moms in towns whose names are etched forever in our memories: Littleton, Paducah, Blacksburg, Aurora, Tucson, and now Newtown.

We understand the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms—just not ALL arms. Let’s make our country a better, less violent place for them.

Preventing mothers around the Nation the heartache of losing a child is a noble enough cause. The only problem is that Watts’ organization’s true agenda is an absolute assault against any American who wishes to exercise Constitutionally guaranteed rights without being fettered by the fears of panicky meddlers.

The group’s agenda is as follows:

1) Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
2) Require background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases.
3) Report the sale of large quantities of ammunition to the ATF, and ban online sales of ammunition.
4) Make gun trafficking a federal crime with serious criminal penalties.
5) Counter gun industry lobbyists’ efforts to weaken gun laws at the state level.

The Plan

The President of the United States and Congressional Democrats have made it clear: After Newtown, anything goes in the fight to disarm — or at least complicate gun ownership to the extreme — for American citizens. Outright lies are fair. Gesticulating wildly about the dangers of guns while figuratively standing atop the graves of children murdered by a mentally insane psychopath is acceptable. And making false associations between guns and unrelated objects is encouraged.

Moms Demand Action has opted for that last approach, with its latest ridiculous anti-gun advertisement campaign. In the ads, two children sit side by side, one holding a gun and the other holding either a book, a dodgeball or what appears to be candy.

“One child is holding something that’s been banned in America to protect them,” the ads read. “Guess which one.”

See for yourself:

“We keep ‘Little Red Riding Hood’ out of schools because of the bottle of wine in her basket.  Why not assault weapons?”

Little-Red-Ridinghood-620x401

“We ban the game dodgeball because it’s viewed as being violent.  Why not assault weapons?”

Choose-One_Dodgeball-620x401

“We won’t sell Kinder chocolate eggs in the interest of child safety. Why not assault weapons?”

Choose-One_Kinder-Egg-940x608

Aside from the fact that oversensitive parenting, the everyone’s-a-winner mentality and bans on things like dodgeball and certain books are likely largely to blame for the increasingly pusillanimous demeanor of America’s younger generations (perhaps even partly to blame for the creation of monsters that shoot up schools), these ads are so ridiculous that one would be forced to assume they couldn’t possibly be taken seriously. Do you recall ever hearing of children having the ability to check guns out of the library, shooting at one another with semi-automatic rifles in gym class or being given access to weapons as readily as they are candy?

“It’s this idea of juxtaposing the absurdity of what America is so worried about harming our children, yet we do not have an assault weapons ban. We have such lax gun laws in this country and yet we pretend to be so concerned about our children,” Watts told ABC News.

Watts and her ilk have already earned some fans, and she recently attended a news conference with Vice President “Shotgun” Joe Biden.

Conservatives are going to have to double down if there is any hope of protecting our own children from the in-your-face liberalism encouraged in the fallacy-ridden propaganda of morons like Watts.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Moms Demand Action, A Group For Lying Gun-Hating Morons”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • independent thinker

    When I was growing up we played dodge ball, we read Little Red Riding Hood, We had access to any kind of candy we could afford, and we had ready access to firearms. When I was in high school it was common to see shotguns and rifles including the M1 carbine (a so called “assualt weapon”) in student’s vehicles on the parking lot and it was rare to see those vehicles locked. There was four high schools in my home town and for the 12 years I spent in school there plus the next 8 years until I moved away there was no school shootings.

    • satelliter

      Then the government came in and took control of the school system….NOW, look what’s going on………

  • Average_Joe56

    Life seems to remain quite interesting…

    There was a bit of confusion at the Cabala’s Sporting Goods store yesterday morning.

    When I was ready to pay for my purchases of gun powder and bullets the cashier said,

    “Strip down, facing me.”

    Making a mental note to complain to the NRA about the gun control whackos running amok,

    I did just as she had instructed.

    When the hysterical shrieking and alarms finally subsided, I

    found out that she was referring to my credit card.

    I have been asked to shop elsewhere in the future.

    They need to make their instructions to us seniors a little

    clearer! I STILL DON’T THINK I LOOKED THAT BAD
    ;)

    AJ

    • satelliter

      So the Obama schooled clerk did not know the difference between the words “strip” and “stripe”. Typical high school graduate of today……….

    • ReneeTru

      Thanks for the laugh!!

    • Jeff

      And yet they sold you a gun! Had you told that story to the Senate, perhaps background checks would have passed!

      • Average_Joe56

        Reading comprehension problems, or do you just need new glasses? Start with the glasses…it’s much cheaper than a complete education.

        Please re-read my post and point out where I said that I bought a gun.

        “When I was ready to pay for my purchases of gun powder and bullets the cashier said,”

        I’ve owned guns since I was 8 years old…and believe it or not, In my 57 years,I haven’t had to shoot anyone…even though, I myself have been shot … by a criminal… shooting at someone else….not by a gun. I know who to blame…you blame an inanimate object….. Which of us should not be owning firearms? BTW, I have never bought a firearm that I did not have to have a background check run…not even at a gun show…

        Also, my post was humor…take a dollar or two … and buy some….

        • Jeff

          Isn’t this entire thread about guns? I wasn’t talking about you specifically, but about how one’s right to carry a gun may be different in the country from the city. If you didn’t understand that, I’m truly sorry for you.

          • Jeff

            Oh, that post. Sorry, I didn’t study it too carefully. Presumably if they’re selling you gunpowder and bullets (no beer?), they already sold you the gun.

          • Average_Joe56

            “Oh, that post. Sorry, I didn’t study it too carefully”
            Yet you felt the urge to respond? How simply brilliant of you!
            Cover yourself…your ignorance is showing…..and it isn’t pretty.
            AJ

          • Jeff

            Brilliant? I think not. A blind man can see the holes in your arguments.

          • Average_Joe56

            ” A blind man can see the holes in your arguments.”
            Maybe, but you’ve also brought deaf and dumb to the table…that must really suck… you miss out on… everything……

            Nobody can possibly be as stupid as you appear to be. Whatever they are paying you for your diatribe …it’s too much. Ask your handlers to reassign you…you aren’t very good at this.
            Enough of my time wasted on silly people…… parting gifts are available at the door……
            AJ

          • vicki

            Well since we are not blind would you kindly point out the “holes”? It should be amusing.

          • Average_Joe56

            “I wasn’t talking about you specifically, ”

            You weren’t?

            “And yet they sold you a gun!”

            Right…. Back peddle…….
            AJ

          • vicki

            Have you considered the meaning of “…shall NOT be infringed.”?

        • Jeff

          Believe it or not, I took it as humor. That’s why I didn’t notice you referenced gunpowder and bullets rather than an actual gun. You can claim your superiority all day long, sonny (I’m 2 years older than you.), but the fact is that the more guns and high capacity magazines in circulation, the more of them that will get into the hands of the Adam Lanzas of the world. It’s just a fact. If you’re OK with that, that’s fine. I’m not.

          • Average_Joe56

            2 years older? Wow…too bad you didn’t pick up any wisdom…or education along the way, both could have made a difference.
            As for the rest of your drivel, I happen to have quite a few of those Hi-cap Magazines in my possession, so no, I don’t have a problem with them. I can’t recall ever having too much ammo or magazines to put it in.
            Oh BTW, just to get under your skin a bit more… I am also studying to become a gunsmith at the present time and once I have my FFL, I will be applying for a class 3 permit…..ooooo… full auto…..ooooo….scary, scary……
            I am sorry to hear that you allow inanimate objects to frighten you, you have my sympathies….but only to a point….professional mental health is available to help you with your phobia.
            Best wishes for a full recovery,
            AJ

            Peace through superior firepower, it’s an American tradition!

          • Jeff

            I’d say you’re significantly below average if you think it’s the inanimate object that people fear. There are many people out there intent on harming others. I think even you probably know that. Just the political assassinations we’ve suffered should tell you that. Then, we have the mass shootings and the gang shootings. All those crazy people are made infinitely more dangerous by guns. If you can’t see that and want to talk about phobias, all I can say is I can’t wait to see if you change your tune when someone close to you is gunned down by some nut who got a gun because he didn’t need to pass a background check. Or someone close to you is the 25th person shot by a gun nut with a 30 round clip. People like you are the enablers of people like Adam Lanza.

          • vicki

            Jeff writes:

            I’d say you’re significantly below average if you think it’s the inanimate object that people fear.

            Ad hominem. Btw We think that cause that is what they say.
            http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/

            And we apparently are not the only ones to hear that people blame inanimate objects.
            http://forums.yogscast.com/showthread.php?26443-why-does-everyone-believe-guns-cause-crime

            Now does that mean they “fear” guns? Perhaps not but it does not bode well for their ability to reason.

          • Jeff

            Peace? When have we had peace? Most of our wars have been overseas so Grandma Citizen isn’t inconvenienced, but in the 224 years since 1789, I don’t think we’ve had too many years of actual “peace.” In fact, as I recall it, your crowd used to consider calls for peace “UnAmerican.” Maybe you are old enough to remember the Viet Nam days?

            And your being a gunsmith doesn’t get “under my skin” at all. As Don Corleone said to Sollozo, “You understand, it doesn’t matter to me what a man does for a living, but your business is a little dangerous.” Likewise, I don’t care what you do, but it’s unlikely I’ll be visiting your shop as I have no need of a p*nis substitute.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      I’ll pass on seeing you in the “altogether”, and the keyboard thankfully only caught some of the tea spatter. That was a good belly laugh you gave me. Thank you.

  • chocopot

    “We understand the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms—just not ALL arms. Let’s make our country a better, less violent place for them.”
    Where in the Second Amendment does it say “not ALL arms?” Court decisions notwithstanding, the Second Amendment contains no language permitting any limitations, restrictions, or exceptions. So let’s try that again. Where does it say anything about the limitations that these goody two shoes feel they have the right to impose on us?

    • ReneeTru

      The second Amendment was designed to keep us safe from an over reaching government. The goal was to be able to create an armed militia if necessary to keep our freedom from being taken away by a government out of bounds . It is true that weapons at the time the constitution was written were simple compared to today’s weapons, which meant those governing were armed similar to the citizens. Now the government has weapons way beyond what the citizen has access to for protection from a power hungry leader. That said, there is no need for further gun regulation. They have already gone overboard.

      • Jeff

        We’ll see if you feel differently when the next Adam Lanza shows up at your kids’ or grandkids’ school loaded to the teeth with his Wayne La Pierre specials – AR-15s with 100 round clips so he can mow down the whole school without having to reload more than a couple of times. It’s quite a selling point!

        • BLH557

          Bloomberg SHILL!

          What did they pay you for this line?

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeff.samuels.127 Jeff

            Don’t you think if I were being paid, I’d know the gun nut lingo?

        • momo

          There are no 100 round “clips”, they’re drums.

          • http://www.facebook.com/mike.arnts Mike Arnts

            they’re not clips, they are magazines clips hold the ammunition together to facilitte inserting it into the magazines

      • Elton Robb

        Today’s weapons were designed to bring an end to War. Too bad, it only got more collaterally destructive. The Nuclear Missile isn’t an effective deterrent to War. It’s an abomination before God. The irony of it all? God allowed us to learn the principles behind the technology and to design the technology so His purposes shall be fulfilled.

    • Jeff

      And what other provisions in the Constitution are unlimited? Everything is subject to a rule of reason. I don’t understand how you guys think the 2nd Amendment is above all other rights guaranteed in the Constitution. The 1st Amendment is worded more strongly (“Congress shall pass no law . . . ” ) and less ambiguously (no “well regulated” language) and no one claims the 1st Amendment is without limits (e.g. child pornography).

      IT’S A CONSTITUTION; NOT A SUICIDE PACT!

      • chocopot

        I am starting to feel like a broken record these days. Everyone should read the Constitution, but to really understand it, one must also read The Federalist Papers, which are analyses and explanations of what the Constitution really means, written by those who wrote and signed off on the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, are a specification of God-given rights; they are spelled out so all will understand that, since these are rights given by God – not men – to all men, men cannot take them away – AND THERE ARE NO LIMITATIONS OR EXCEPTIONS to them, court decisions notwithstanding. Is that clear now?
        As for the so often misunderstood term “well regulated,” in the language of the day when it was written, it meant “well trained.”
        Indeed, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, which is why it does not allow for Left-wing dictator wannabes to start reinterpreting it so they can gradually take away everyone else’s rights.

        • Jeff

          No limitations? Court decisions notwithstanding? WTF are you talking about? Virtually everything in the Constitution has to be interpreted by a Court. Does the 4th Amendment mean the police can never search your house or your car? Does it mean they can never do so without a warrant? And how can a magistrate issue a warrant without first interpreting the 4th Amendment?

          • chocopot

            Read The Federalist Papers.

          • chocopot

            “Virtually everything in the Constitution has to be interpreted by a Court.” Who said that? The Courts?

          • Jeff

            Who determines if an industry can be regulated under the commerce clause? You? The guy with the biggest gun? And who determines whether a search is reasonable or a punishment is cruel and unusual? I believe they’re called courts.

        • Jeff

          I believe the framers were completely aware of the modern definition of “regulate.” The commerce clause uses the term “regulate” in the modern sense, not in the sense of a Swiss watch.

          • chocopot

            The Commerce Clause is the most abused part of the Constitution over the last century.

          • Jeff

            I guess you feel about the Commerce Clause as I do about the 2nd Amendment. The difference is a more open interpretation of the Commerce Clause has allowed the country to progress while your unlimited interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has made us the murder capital of the civilized world.

          • http://www.facebook.com/mike.arnts Mike Arnts

            I can think of seerl 3rd world countrthat have us beat on our being the muder capital of the civilized world….

      • chocopot

        Oh, and by the way, since you brought up child pornography, here is how it should be handled by the authorities. I know that those who engage in this disgusting and reprehensible practice always use the First Amendment as a defense. I have to agree with them there. But what they should not get away with, the catch that should be used to prosecute them, is a clear case of child abuse and forcing a child to engage in dangerous acts against his/her will. The First Amendment will still be sacrosanct, but the lowlife who engaged in this act will still be punished.

        • Jeff

          You are mistaken. Child pornography is illegal even where the child is unaware of the act. Do you think you can distribute pornographic pictures of a minor when the child is completely unaware the pictures were even taken?

          • chocopot

            I have no more time to waste on this or you – I have a job.

      • BLH557

        Mayor Bloomberg and his “group” (read CULT) Mayors Against Illegal Guns (isn’t EVERYONE, especially all of us NRA members against illegal guns… well, except, of course, Eric Holder) is paying a group if trolls to frequent the conservative websites and agitate the readers in an attempt to foment angry, hostile comments from the readers. Please refrain from commenting to these paid shills. Let them revel in their silence rather than their (paid) stupidity.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          But with silence or no response the Dems/Progs/Leftists will take that to mean that you agree with them or are afraid of them. Let them be blatherskites.

          • BLH557

            No. To reply to a shill simply justifies their existence. Please remain silent so mayor bloomers wastes his money.

  • Diego CDeBaca

    Absolutely [comment has been edited] view. Guns = chocolate = dodgeball = Little Red Ridinghood? (Or maybe they meant the Big Bad Wolf?)
    How much more ignorant can people be?
    2nd Amendment = Freedoms & Rights.
    To restrict or diminish one will also restrict or diminish the other!
    (I would bet Watts is happy about “Obamacare” & collects some form of “welfare” or social “entitlement”…)
    If you hobble the sheepdog, the wolves shall feast upon the flock of sheep.

  • DavidL

    The supreme Court doesn’t agree with you. Heck, Scalia doesn’t agree with you. Do some homework.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Does that make them right? They cannot understand: “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” They may need to improve their reading comprehension. So should you, by the way.

      • vicki

        At least they did understand that “the people” means “the people” not “the militia”. Now they just have to work on the meaning of “shall not be infringed”.

        I think they are having trouble with “be” ever since President Clinton raised the question of the definition of “is”.

    • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

      What is this in response to? The mother or a poster?

  • mark

    “Moms Demand Action: A Group For Lying, Gun-Hating Morons,” this is actual the title of this article. Another example of the wonderful journalistic standards on this site. One of Personal LIberty Digest’s official policies is the following, and this is a direct quote off the website: ” Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don’t stoop to name calling.” Unreal. Could have perhaps called the article: “Moms Demand Action: A Group for Radical Anti-Gun Extremists.” No, then Sam Rolley woud have been following the policies of Personal Liberty Digest. And this from a site that frequently has articles by its founder Bob Livingston, condemning liberals and statists for using biased labels and insulting terms to describe Constitutionalists and Libertarians? Talk about the kettle calling the pot black. This site is rapidly becoming a complete joke, almost as bad as some of the extreme leftist blogs I’ve browsed.

    • WesTexan

      Let’s see if I have this right. Moms Demand Action uses lies to make their case, and it is quite clear that they hate guns—all guns. Then they use kids to contrast guns with Little Red Riding Hood, dodge ball, and Kinder chocolate eggs—none of which should be banned. Well, the Kinder chocolate egg may be the most dangerous of all for toddlers—but one would have to be a moron to make such comparisons. The title of the article seems to be spot on.

    • ReneeTru

      Your point makes sense. They might want to follow their guidelines more closely.

    • Jeff

      Right wingers always have at least two standards. Like, deficits don’t matter unless a Democrat is president. On this site, the authors and the right wing contributors can say anything – name-call, call for assassinations, the whole shebang. But if a liberal calls someone an idiot, that gets bleeped. It’s what the country would look like if our Uncle Bob were Chief Justice.

    • Joe America

      You reference “journalistic standards” while talking about an article clearly marked as analysis. Journalism is the art of writing facts, analysis is analyzing them– an inherently subjective undertaking. One would assume a man holding himself in such high regard as you obviously do would understand that. And, it’s clear that PL’s moderation style bends the rules at times, certainly in comment moderation. Are you a busybody without a job, or are you just generally bored with your life?

  • youcanthavemyfreedom

    Am I the only one or did anyone else notice that in each picture the one holding the gun was the white kid?

    • http://www.OlGreyGhost.Blogspot.com/ Ol’ Grey Ghost

      Ah, you beat me to the point. You realize, though, that your sensitivity to that issue proves beyond a doubt that you must be a “racist bigot” since you noticed that particular slant…

      http://olgreyghost.blogspot.com/2009/05/another-bumper-sticker-i-want-to-see_27.html

      We’ll probably see more of this assumption in the coming weeks and months in reference to whites and guns. Mark my words…

  • Mr Diesel

    We have a name for these people from Indiana, Indiots.

  • Steve E

    We should ban all pressure cookers. The ones that now have pressure cookers can keep them. However, the existing pressure cookers will eventually go away because once someone uses the pressure cooker, they will throw them away because the food is used up in them.

  • jannajh@shaw.ca

    it seems to me that Democratie died yesterday
    the Senate is skewed enough already as is
    California pop 36 million+ 2 senators
    delaware pop 900000+ 2 senators
    yet you still need 60 senate votes out of 100 to get anything past
    talk about the tyranny of a very minor minority over the massive majority of rest of the Americans

    • independent thinker

      But in the house Kalifornia has 53 and Delaware has only 1.

      • Hellpig

        shhhh ProgComs hate facts

      • Jeff

        And? The point is an undemocratic Senate can prevent legislation from passing. The House has its own undemocratic aspects like the gerrymandering of Districts so Repugs keep the majority even when Democrats get the most votes.

        • glock 19 fan

          When will you wake up and realize that we were not founded as a democracy; we are a Constitutional Republic with safeguards to protect minorities from a “tyranny of the majority.” Besides, if an “overwhelming majority” wanted the controls that are the present bone of contention then the NRA would be powerless to stop them. The fact is that the claim of 90% of Americans wanting them is a bald-faced lie and Reid and Obama knew and know it to be a lie. The gun grabbers have borrowed a page from Lenin declaring “any ruse, cunning, unlawful method, evasion and concealment of the truth” to be proper when used to support communism and use that same “end justifies the means” type of “morality” to achieve their goal. Enough of Congress knows that 100,000,000-plus American gun owners didn’t hurt or kill **anybody** and mass punishment of **innocent** people is not acceptable and will not be tolerated at the polls.

          • Jeff

            I just hope your attitude changes when you or someone close to you is on the receiving end of our gun nut culture.

          • glock 19 fan

            What would upset me would be if I were denied the means to defend my family because of some idiotic law. Or do you prefer that we kneel for execution in the event that the front door is kicked in?

          • Jeff

            Are you always holding the gun just in case? Eating dinner? In the can? Changing the baby? That kid’ll have some issues! Do you really live in fear someone is about to break down your door? Are you a drug dealer or do you live next door to one? Otherwise, the guys who kick down your door will have the drop on you and they’ll have you outgunned.

          • glock 19 fan

            And you are an idiot. You think that wearing a pistol in a holster while changing the baby will cause “issues”? No way! The child would never notice! We also live in a fairly safe neighborhood and have neighborhood watch although patrols are not necessary. There is something we all should look out for though especially if you live in an area in which the welfare recipients outnumber the taxpayers (there are many). When those people who are accustomed to handouts learn that there is no more money then they will set out to take what they think they are owed. Then there will be urban gangs spilling out of the cities into the suburbs and beyond, into the farm country. Our AR’s and AK’s with 30 round mags will be worth their weight in gold as we hunker down behind barricades.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeff.samuels.127 Jeff

            I imagine you were toilet trained at gun-point, too and look how well you turned out!

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Jeff, keep lying.

        • Frank Kahn

          Okay, a lesson in government is needed here.

          We live in a republic, not a democracy, it is not rule by majority as you would wish. It is rule for the individual. The senate is specifically designed to balance the inequities of large population areas. We don’t want California making laws for the rest of us, so the senate gives us the exact same power as Californians have.

          Kinda nice living out here in the wide open country and still having the power to suppress the insanity of city dwellers.

          • Jeff

            Frank, I understand all that, but most people live in a given state by accident (birth, job, school, etc.). The time has long since passed when people identified as Virginians or Georgians rather than as Americans. It is probably impossible to change the federal system at this point, but when someone points out that a citizen living in Wyoming is far more represented in Congress than is a Californian, he isn’t wrong. If anything, it’s the Red States doing the dictating while taking the money of the Blue States.

          • Frank Kahn

            left right red blue dem rep liberal conservative. Wrong ideas.

            Let us go, if you think you are so important. We will come in and demolish those eyesores after you all starve to death.

            People that think like you are despotic. You dream and drool for democracy which is just another form of totalitarian rule. You think that the majority is always right. The system is not perfect but it is set up for checks and balances. You big city loons get your share of votes in the house. We get the power to limit your rampant desire to lord it over us with our equality in the senate. The house of representatives is determined by population. The senate is determined by the sovereignty of the states. I don’t take any money from any blue state. I pay my share in taxes and earn what I get. I doubt that the same can be said of the majority of inner city residents in the big cities.

            You want a different form of government, fine with me, go find an island and setup your own personal democracy hell.

    • jhop

      Really, you think that you are in the majority? I would argue. And maybe if you look at the facts you would understand that registration of guns would not and did not stop Newtown. Take away the assault weapon and you put absolute power in the hands of the government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Also the toughest gun control policy belongs to the 3 major cities with the largest crime rates. It is clear that our guns are not the problem, but our legislators are.

      • independent thinker

        Here is an interesting tid bit.
        Tale of Two CitiesChicago, IL Houston, TX
        Population 2.7 million 2.15 million
        Median HH Income $38,600 $37,000
        % African-American 38.9% 24%
        % Hispanic 29.9% 44%
        % Asian 5.5% 6%
        % Non-Hispanic White 38.7% 26%
        Pretty similar until you compare the following:Chicago, IL Houston, TX Concealed Carry gun law no yes
        # of Gun Stores 0 84 – Dedicated gun stores plus 1500 – legal places to buy guns- Walmart, K-mart, sporting goods, etc.
        Homicides, 2012 806 207
        Homicides per 100K 28.4 9.6
        Avg. January high temperature (F)31° 63°

        Conclusion:Cold weather causes murder.

      • Jeff

        I’ve got news for you, your gun gives you no power whatsoever. It gives you the ability to kill people, but then you’ll be killed or locked up. Your rights come from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and American traditions (some of which are only about 50 years old). If you think your power or your rights are from your gun, you’re dreaming. If you think the government is wronging you, you have access to the courts, not to the battlefield!

        • Frank Kahn

          Wow, Jeff, you are absolutely right, guns don’t give you rights. Problem is, nobody said they do. Guns help you protect your rights, not get them. On the next point you are absolutely wrong, guns do give you power. They give you the power to oppose people who would do harm or try to take your rights away.

          You are also wrong in assuming that the government is not doing harm to us just because you are a liberal Obama butt kissing ignoramus. What is good for you is just that, good for you, it is not in any way, shape or form good for all people.

        • momo

          Your rights come from God. The Constitution and Bill of Rights put limits on the government’s power.

          • Jeff

            That’s fine in a theoretical sense, but if your rights are violated, I suggest you go to court in addition to going to Church.

        • Average_Joe56

          “Your rights come from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and American traditions (some of which are only about 50 years old). ”

          WTF? Adjust your meds.

          Our Rights come from our creator, not from documents. The documents were put in place to restrain the government and liberals ( Folks who don’t know the difference rights, wants and needs) from infringing upon those rights. I am guessing that you’ve never read any of the documents…including the Declaration of Independence….

          “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

          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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
          (please take special note of the first sentence of the second paragraph)
          Education is a wonderful thing… please get some before you injure someone…. Ignorance can be fixed…stupidity kills.
          AJ

          • Jeff

            If your rights come from God then what difference do laws make? The fact is your God-given rights mean very little if not recognized in some human context. Pre-1776 Americans had the same Creator presumably but no one recognized their rights. Slaves pre-emancipation had God-given rights, but they didn’t do the slaves much good, did they? Drink 8 ounces of holy water, denounce Darwin and Obama as the Devil, and call me in the morning!

          • Average_Joe56

            I will repeat, not that you will understand.

            Education is a wonderful thing… please get some before you injure someone…. Ignorance can be fixed…stupidity kills…

            and you’ve made it abundantly clear that you’re not ignorant … therefore, you must be…..

            “He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher… or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.”
            Douglas Adams

            AJ

          • Jeff

            Why don’t you discuss it with Rush – he’s a drop out who knows everything, too!

          • Average_Joe56

            Now you’re just being funny…but… looks aren’t everything.
            Sorry, you blew your chance for the parting gift…but the exit is still available…

            AJ

          • Jeff

            Joe:

            Your degrees from Beck U and the Fatbaugh Institute do not grant you any special insight into governance. The words you cite are wonderful, but they are not self-executing. Governments are instituted to determine limits, so my metaphorical fist knows where to stop (i.e. short of your metaphorical nose). Your right to shoot any gun you want in the wilds of Montana might have to give way to others’ rights in Manhattan. Those complexities don’t fit on a bumper sticker, and they’re hardly poetic enough for the Declaration of Independence. I’ve studied the Constitution in depth (not at some right wing seminar) and know something about how it’s actually applied to real life controversies.

          • Average_Joe56

            “Your degrees from Beck U and the Fatbaugh Institute do not grant you any special insight into governance.”

            No idea what you are referring too here…making unfounded ASSumptions again? If, as I suspect, you are referring to the MSM, I don’t watch any of them… although occasionally I do hang out at MSNBC…that place is a laugh fest…Comedy Central can’t hold a candle to those whack jobs….

            While your rant may not grant me anything, 4 semesters of audited classes in law at Stetson University’s law school, as well as being a Registered Land Surveyor ( An occupation that definitely involves law and legalese)….might just grant me enough knowledge to know more than some armchair lawyer who got their degree watching the MSM……. such as yourself.

            Sometimes it’s better to keep your mouth shut and let us wonder if you’re an idiot…rather than to open it and remove all doubt.
            Go ahead, open mouth, switch feet…. yet again…..

            As I stated above…you’re not very good at this…find a new job.

            AJ

          • Jeff

            I would say the standards for land surveyors have definitely dropped. Wasn’t that Jefferson’s profession, or one of them? And you . . . . are no Jefferson. But seriously, as a land surveyor and as a person who probably deals with title to real property, would you ever go to Court with a note that God wanted Mrs. Jones to have this property? I think not. Saying your rights emanate from God is nice and poetic and it doesn’t require you to get too specific about them. But when you get into the Bill of Rights and the realities of what the 2nd Amendment does and doesn’t guarantee, specificity is the name of the game.

            There seems to be an implicit belief by the right wingers on these blogs that you, and you alone, have the answers. That you, and you alone, know the meanings of the Bill of Rights, and that Courts and Judges have no place in interpreting these rights. Well, I’m here to tell you that you are wrong. The Constitution is not just the document; it is all the decisions that have been handed down over the years interpreting the document. When lawyers argue suppression motions, they start with the language of the 4th Amendment, but quickly move on to the specifics of the case and how they relate to other cases decided by the Courts. It’s called stare decisis. That way, each court does not get involved in a lengthy philosophical debate over the meaning of “reasonable search and seizure.”

            Similarly, when the Supreme Court eventually rules on what the meaning of “arms” is in the 2nd Amendment, then you’ll know. If Congress ever breaks free of the NRA and passes a ban on extended round clips, we’ll find out if even the most reactionary Supreme Court we’ve seen since the 1930s will rule that the 2nd Amendment says you have a right to any weapon the Army has.

          • Average_Joe56

            “Wasn’t that Jefferson’s profession, or one of them?”

            Actually. Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln were all Land Surveyors at some point in their lives.

            ” But when you get into the Bill of Rights and the realities of what the 2nd Amendment does and doesn’t guarantee, specificity is the name of the game.”

            Let me give you the full scoop on the Second Amendment: (please make sure you read it, in it’s entirety before opening mouth and inserting feet).

            As passed by the Congress:

            A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

            The statement: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state,”
            is often misunderstood to mean that you need to be in a militia in order to own firearms. Well, point in-fact, every male of draft age who is of sound body and mind is considered a member of the “unorganized militia” according to the law, but that’s irrelevant, because the second statement:
            “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
            is the important part. This statement is the crux of the amendment and ensures that the individual right to bear arms is not infringed upon. Now, the way this sentence is constructed (in total), the right of the people allows for the well-regulated militia. The militia is a byproduct of the right to bear arms, not a prerequisite. Here is the grammatical break down from the prof:
            [ Copperud:] The words “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ” militia,” which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject “the right,” verb “shall”). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
            In reply to your numbered questions:
            [Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
            [ Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
            [Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
            [ Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
            [Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
            [ Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
            [Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
            [ Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
            [Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase " well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
            [ Copperud:] (5) The phrase means “subject to regulations of a superior authority”; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
            [Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
            [ Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.”
            [Schulman:] As a “scientific control” on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
            “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
            My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
            (1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and
            (2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict “the right of the people to keep and read Books” only to “a well-educated electorate” – for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
            [ Copperud:] (1) Your “scientific control” sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
            (2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

            Got it? Good.

            Roy Herman Copperud, a professor of journalism and an authority on the use of the English language.
            Now, if you still wish to argue…with an authority in the English language, you will truly show your arrogance and ignorance. Reality…wow, what a concept…you should try it sometime.
            AJ

          • Jeff

            I have no argument with Professor Copperud, though I can’t say the same about Mr. Schulman as his biases shine through in both his questions and his interpretation of what Copperud said.

            1) “. . .solely to a well-regulated militia”?

            This may point out the difference between a purely English analysis and a more legal analysis. If the Supreme Court is to analyze the 2nd Amendment, it must look to the most reasonable interpretation of the language. I agree that the militia is not necessarily the only reason for people to have guns. But the clause (or present participle) is there for a reason. In 1790, we had no standing army. If Connecticut needed to defend itself against attack by the Cajuns from French Arcadia (Canada) or the New Yorkers, it needed arms. The 2nd Amendment guaranteed that a state could maintain a “well regulated militia” to defend itself.

            And we know from Dr. Copperud’s analysis that “well regulated” meant then what it means now, to wit: “subject to regulations of a superior authority.” Who was that greater authority? The Governor of the state or the vigilante with the biggest mouth?

            Since we now have a standing army, these arguments are about as dated as the Third Amendment. I do not believe that a state must have a militia in order to regulate guns within its borders, but I do think it is clear that the Amendment so empowers the states. Remember that in 1790, the States had all the power. While Congress could pass no law abridging freedom of speech or religion, the individual states could unless prohibited by their State Constitutions. If Rhode Island had made Puritanism its State Religion, the U.S. Constitution could not have prevented it. That didn’t come until 1961.

            So, when the Supreme Court ultimately determines the limits of the 2nd Amendment (i.e.Who can have a gun? What guns are protected as “arms”? Limits on clip sizes; etc.), an English lesson may be the beginning of the analysis, but it definitely will not be the end.

          • Average_Joe56

            “Shall not be infringed”, still means…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED…..it doesn’t get any more plain than that.
            Best wishes for a full recovery,
            AJ

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeff.samuels.127 Jeff

            And the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall pass no law abridging free speech.” Does that mean Congress can’t pass a law making it illegal for a Government official to pass along top secret information? After all, it says “no law.” This is why interpretation involves the use of the brain. You can’t simply follow the “logic” of extending everything out to its most ridiculous extreme. You can call me stupid, but my IQ really has nothing to do with this.

            If your “logic” ends up with private citizens able to own nukes, you can be sure someone will cut off the chain prior to that. The law has a concept of proximate causation. It means not everything that in some way causes something else can be considered the “proximate” or legal cause. A butterfly flapping its wings in California may, in some way, cause a hurricane on the East Coast, but not proximately. A logical chain works the same way. Children often reason this way. You start with something in your neighborhood and pretty soon you’re extrapolating to the whole universe. Adults generally don’t reason that way. Reality and experience enter the equation, so we don’t interpret Constitutional Amendments based solely on what the language could permit. There’s always an element of reasonableness involved.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Your comment is a lie, a falsehood, a prevarication, a load of C**P. So what shall we take you to be since what is in the well of the heart comes out the bucket of the mouth?

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeff.samuels.127 Jeff

            Such poetic nonsense!

  • rbrooks

    most americans, including the gop, nra and conservatives. support the current gun and gun ownership restrictions. how can any of you complain about future restrictions.

    • ReneeTru

      Um because there is a line that can be crossed in most anything don’t you think?

      • rbrooks

        lol. you simply enforce my original point. those that are complaining today about the proposed restrictions, did not see any problem in forcing americans into crossing a line that restricted those americans of their 2nd amendment rights courtesy of the current circumventions of the 2nd amendment.

        or more simply stated. you only complain when you are forced to cross that line and join the other americans who have had their rights stolen.

  • James Riley

    This woman has never needed to protect herself or her children.Put her in a room with a mental case and give her a gun and a knife.Tell her she can use ether or her bare hands if she wants.How quick would she use the GUN to protect those she loves.I hope I am never forced to use deadly force to protect my loved ones but I do want the right given me to do it.

  • FreedomFighter

    Its not about saving children, its about power and control. I feel sorry for these missguided usefull idiots to want to give up freedom for false security.

    Seattle Has Been Taken Over By The Department Of Homeland Security
    http://govtslaves.info/seattle-has-been-taken-over-by-the-department-of-homeland-security/

    “Are the 1.6 billion rounds starting to make more sense now? they’re grooming and placing assets where they need them first. Ever heard of the massacre at Hue, south Vietnam? on January 31st of 1968, the N. Vietnamese were able to go inside this city in the early hours of the morning and execute every single South Vietnam sympathizer without error. in one night they were able to pinpoint every household where they lived, pull them out and kill them. at the time this seamed improbable, how could they organize this? informants, data systems, and useful idiots that thought something like that could never happen. And then it happened. ”

    Laus Deo
    Semper FI

  • BarrackHussein

    More recently… they should have named themselves, Momz-against-Boms…
    I have a REQUEST FOR ACTION: Find themselves a man, marry them (or stay married), and take care of their own kids’ needs.
    Vouchers would create a visble option as well.

  • ICEDRAGONNITE

    Infringed. What
    is the meaning?

    Definition of infringe (v)

    bing.com
    · Bing Dictionary

    in·fringe

    [ in
    frínj ]

    disobey or disregard
    something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms
    of an agreement

    encroach on somebody’s
    rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or
    activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual
    way

    Synonyms: encroach on,
    intrude on, interfere with, impinge on, trespass, invade, overstep

    Do you think
    the Congress is finally learning what it means?

    • vicki

      When they start repealing the other infringements (NFA 1934, GCA 1968….) then maybe I can think that Congress has begun to learn.

      • glock 19 fan

        Remember: Thomas Dodd brought a copy of what became GCA68 back from Europe. Literally, in the original German (it was originally Hitler’s 1938 Weapons Act).

  • Alex

    The civilized world looks on in horror and amazement as we blow ourselves to bits.
    Gun nuts are afraid of their own shadows…..

    • Average_Joe56

      ‘Gun nuts are afraid of their own shadows…..”

      Nonsense (carrying a firearm does not make someone a nut, it makes them cautious)…they are armed, what do they have to be afraid of?

      On the contrary, I believe that it is you and your hoplaphobe friends that are paranoid and afraid…of inanimate objects.

      About the only thing that we fear…is having to come to the aid of some worthless gun grabber…and possibly shoot someone else or get shot in their defense…but, we will still put our lives on the line to aid in your defense… even though you would prefer that we all just become victims.

      “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
      ― Samuel Adams

      AJ

  • BLH557

    In case any of you are unaware, Mayor Bloomers is paying a group to troll conservative websites in an attempt to foment hostile and angry words. Please refrain from replying to these erstwhile “people”. They are being paid to agitate you. Leave them silent.

    Let him pay for absolutely NOTHING!

  • BlueMoney

    Kids can’t have Little Red Riding Hood in school libraries because it encourages alcohol abuse, but they can have THIS:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Tango_Makes_Three
    God help us.

    Oh and, HEAVEN FORBID they learn anything about responsible gun handling.

    • Karolyn

      If only kids could be brought up to be accepting of, and loving toward, others.

  • Guest

    Sorry mom, but the fact of the matter is, all shootings like this have taken place in ”gun free zones”. There is no need for assault weapons ban, no need for magazine capacity bans, etc. For your child was already in a ”safe”, ”gun free” area, where it was guaranteed that only the criminals would be allowed guns. I am sorry that your child died, but am even more sorry that you allow scum like Obama to step all over you in the name of punishing us law abiding citizens for someone else’s crime.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.