Last Updated:August 1 @ 10:33 am

Malkin: The Post-Newtown Witch Hunt

By Michelle Malkin

In the aftermath of the horrific Newtown, Conn., school massacre, Americans from all parts of the political spectrum agree that we need to pay more attention to mental health issues. Public death threats and incitements to violence must be taken seriously. The incendiary witch hunt against law-abiding, peaceful gun owners is neither noble nor effective. It's just plain insane.

Over the past week, I've witnessed a disturbing outbreak of off-the-rails hatred toward gun owners and Second Amendment groups. Whatever your views on guns, we can all agree: The Newtown gunman was a monster who slaughtered his own mother, five heroic educators and 20 angel-faced schoolchildren. He ignored laws against murder. He bypassed Connecticut's strict gun control regulations, and he circumvented the Sandy Hook Elementary School's security measures. Every decent American is horrified and heartsick by this outbreak of pure evil.

But tens of millions of law-abiding men and women own and use guns responsibly in this country. The cynical campaign to demonize all armed men and women as monsters must not go unanswered. What's most disturbing is that the incitements are coming from purportedly respectable, prominent and influential public figures.

Consider the rhetoric of University of Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis. He teaches "U.S. environmental history, the Civil War, late 19th and early 20th century America, labor history, and the American West" in the university's history department. Online, however, Loomis is a militantly unhinged foe of all things conservative.

This week, the nutty professor took to Twitter to rail against law-abiding gun owners and the National Rifle Association. "Looks like the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children," Loomis fumed. "Now I want Wayne LaPierre's head on a stick," he added. (LaPierre is executive vice president and CEO of the NRA.) Loomis was just warming up.

"F**k the National Rifle Association and its policies to put crazy guns in everyone's hands," Loomis tweeted. "You are g*dd*mn right we should politicize this tragedy. F**k the NRA. Wayne LaPierre should be in prison," he spewed. "Can we define NRA membership dues as contributing to a terrorist organization?"

If all that wasn't clear enough, Loomis also re-tweeted the following message from a fellow left-winger: "First f**ker to say the solution is for elementary school teachers to carry guns needs to get beaten to death."

When the conservative group Campus Reform called attention to the craziness, Loomis whined about a "right-wing intimidation campaign." Sane university professors shook their heads. University of Tennessee law professor and blogger Glenn Reynolds explained the anti-NRA syllogism at work:

"(1) Something bad happened; (2) I hate you; so (3) it's your fault. This sort of reasoning has played out in all sorts of places over the past century, with poor results. One would expect a history professor to know better."

Unfortunately, Loomis is not alone. Famed author Joyce Carol Oates also took to Twitter to blame the entire membership of the NRA for one evil-doer's massacre. "Another NRA-sponsored massacre for Christmas 2012," Oates wrote. She then accused any politicians who supported the NRA of "felony homicide." And then she mused hopefully for mass shootings against the NRA: "If sizable numbers of NRA members become gun-victims themselves, maybe hope for legislation of firearms?" Shockingly, actress Marg Helgenberger of the TV show "CSI" cheered her on: "One can only hope, but sadly I don't think anything would change."

In Texas, state Democratic Party official John Cobarruvias threw fuel on the fire. Cobarruvias is the Democratic Party precinct chair in Houston, Texas, and holds a seat on the Texas State Democratic Party's executive committee. On his Twitter feed, Cobarruvias labeled the NRA a "domestic terrorist organization" and called for the assassination of NRA leaders and supporters: "Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?"

So, it's come to this: Advocating beheadings, beatings and the mass murder of peaceful Americans to pay for the sins of a soulless madman. But because the advocates of violence fashion themselves champions of non-violence and because they inhabit the hallowed worlds of Hollywood, academia and the Democratic Party, it's acceptable?

Blood-lusting hate speech must not get a pass just because it comes out of the mouths of the protected anti-gun class.

---

Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies" (Regnery 2010).

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 9.4/10 (274 votes cast)
Malkin: The Post-Newtown Witch Hunt, 9.4 out of 10 based on 274 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

93 Comments

  1. Jota_Comment by Jota_
    December 19, 2012 @ 7:32 am

    Am sorry, when this kind of venom is spewed the reasonable debate part is over, but it is not hard to see why crazy people cannot be picked out in a crowd so as to have early intervention, they look too much like a left wing nut!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (107 votes cast)
    • PatComment by Pat
      December 19, 2012 @ 9:36 am

      Could not agree more. If you add up all the vile, hateful and violent remarks made by the left in the last week or so, it would go a long way in explaining why some children are violent. Look what they are exposed to. The one that really was over the top for me was the actor who was enslaved but hip hip hooray, after he got lose, he killed all the white people. Now you don’t suppose, do you, that there might have been a young black guy watching that might try doing that in real life. We certainly have had black on white murders for nothing other than skin color, but we have a president who also wants to divide everyone into cultural, ethnic and socio economic groups and talks about how evil the current target group is, so it should not come as a shock that the Obama hate talk just might have an impact on young people as well since he counts them among his base. Obama, in fact, sets one of the worst, most amoral examples that could be set as far as the value of human life goes………..abortion, late term abortions and now he and the princess want partial birth abortions (and he wants me to believe he loves children when he voted repeatedly to let children who live through a botched abortion left to die and be thrown in the garbage).

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (99 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      December 19, 2012 @ 9:48 am

      If all the insane nuts were put back on to the tree of assylums the Democrats would lose their vote majority and sanity would again reign in America. Let’s start with the Whitehouse and the Senate.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (106 votes cast)
    • jw11Comment by jw11
      December 19, 2012 @ 4:17 pm

      Yes, about 47% of the population is very very stupid. It is to bad the wacko’s could not just choose these stupid, weak minded, brainwashed loser libs. Then the rest of us with guns could just close down the crazies. Sounds like a win win to me. LOL Problem solved.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (19 votes cast)
  2. MaryComment by Mary
    December 19, 2012 @ 9:28 am

    I’m sorry that guy from Houston, Texas opened his mouth. Believe me, most of us Texans do not agree with him. In fact, most Texans own guns, some a collection of them. So I dare someone like him to come after the rest of us.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (87 votes cast)
    • callenComment by callen
      December 19, 2012 @ 10:52 am

      Sorry – I’m from Texas too and I’ve never owned a gun. I feel sufficiently “grown up” without it. And it’s always good to have the “you want it, you’ll have to shoot me and pry it from my dead fingers” mentality.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.4/5 (73 votes cast)
    • sargentmajorComment by sargentmajor
      December 19, 2012 @ 1:57 pm

      Callen – I am delighted to know you feel you are sufficiently “grown up” and have no need for a gun. Personally, I do not think you are sufficiently capable mentally for gun ownership, it’s really impressive that you recognize your shortfall. By the way, I’m sure your neighbors who aren’t “grown up” enough and have weapons won’t try to protect you should you need it. Just call the police, I’m sure they will be at your side in roughly an hour. With luck maybe you can talk someone out of robbing you or raping someone in your family or shooting you until they arrive.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (68 votes cast)
    • EuclidComment by Euclid
      December 19, 2012 @ 4:55 pm

      Callen – I get it, having the “you want it, you’ll have to shoot me and pry it from my dead fingers” mentality is not for everyone. Most people are sheep, some are sheepdogs, and others are wolves (kudos Col. Grossman). There’s nothing wrong with being a sheep, but your disdain for protectors?!? May it one day leave you wishing for a return to less interesting times.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (31 votes cast)
    • slowhandComment by slowhand
      December 20, 2012 @ 9:25 am

      callen — Good for you. I’m sure the principal and teachers in Newtown, like many innocent victims all over, have felt they were sufficiently “grown up” too. How did that work out for them?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (9 votes cast)
  3. begneli2011Comment by begneli2011
    December 19, 2012 @ 9:30 am

    The liberal logic is to take away guns from peaceful law abiding gun owners because of a few bad guys. By that exact same logic , take away cars from law abiding drivers to stop the bad guys driving drunk. Ban cars and save lives.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (91 votes cast)
    • PatComment by Pat
      December 19, 2012 @ 9:42 am

      Box cutters, knives, fertilizer, bomb materials of all sorts, cars, planes and the list is endless. This isn’t about those children being murdered. This is the opportunity to take everyone’s guns away since fast and furious (the original vehicle to take guns away once Americans were blamed for running guns across the border) blew up in their faces and they got caught with their pants down. The dream of the deranged liberal, communist, or whatever they have renamed themselves to appear more palitable is have wanted to disarm us for quite some time and with what they do when they are in charge of our country, it is small wonder. They want to take away your God given rights as protected by the constitution because Obama mistakenly thinks he is GOD.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (95 votes cast)
    • mxquistComment by mxquist
      December 21, 2012 @ 3:52 am

      Exactly, be2011.
      In so many cases, one lone madman–get it libs, a “madman”, does something horrific, and next thing you know, a bunch of bleeding heart, we need to do something about it liberal lock-steppers are demanding that they be given the right to tell millions of law-abiding citizens that a “mad man” illustrates their personal profiles and inclinations.
      Well, I have a simple response to that; Shut the …. Up!
      I’ve heard it all (again) this week. Thew most disgusting being when a anti-gum pundit said, with a straight face, that when you teach a child to shoot a gun you are teaching him to kill–to kill other human beings..!
      That is not even worth pidgeon poop.
      I was taught to shoot when I was six–way back in 1960. Every sibling, cousin and friend, friend of friend that I ever known has been introduced to what a gun is, how it works, what you do with it, but in every case, what you DON’T do with it. Oh, and I live in California! OMG!
      And in every case where the bleeders are trying to convince the sheeple that anyone who wants to destroy civilization as we know it by defending their right to bear arms are anarchists and demented, they end up portraying themselves as ignorant as to what a gun is and what it is intended to do for millions of legal, rationally thinking American citizens.
      For every mad man, or brute robber, hold-up man and otherwise agrresive dispondant who uses a gun in the commission of their illegal action, there are millions who have never even thought of, let alone acted upon, a desire to take their firearm in hand to perpetrate a crime against their fellow man.
      And I find it curious that, even since the report of the tragedy of the horrific assault last Friday, that there have been numerous reports of crime diverted, with no innocent live comprimised or taken, by legally armed conceal/carry gun owners.
      Since Wednesday, I’ve read three.
      None given any “light” in the mainstream news media, because, well, that goes against the new enlightenment and sensability that the Obama administration is lining up to to push on us.
      It makes me have to wonder, if there was a way, if there was a group able to methodically, dispassionately study the data, in the history of the United States, wars aside, in strictly civilian perameters, where would the needle swing as how many guns were responsiblefor tragic crimes vs the number of well armed citizen who, quietly, unremarkably, prevented a tragedy by simply brandishing their Second Amendment right…

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (8 votes cast)
  4. inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
    December 19, 2012 @ 9:43 am

    Let’s put the blame where it belongs, with the leaders who preach the divisive ideology of entitlement of everything that belongs to someone else in a Liberal land of no accountability nor responsibility for poor life choices where no higher authority is to be recognized than the act of immediate gratification, up to and including taking the life of innocent children for 15 minutes of fame. This nut who slew the innocent was born and bred in the educational halls of liberal license which breeds the insanity of unaccountability and unrestricted actions by situational morality people who recognize no higher authority that their own momentary impulse to dominate others. This is self evident in every action we have seen from Obama, his administration and His pet Harpie female Progressive paradigm of Pelosi. I don’t blame the guns. 65 million American gun owners killed nobody last year. My father and his “Greatest generation” of men came back from WWII with fully automatic rifles and semi-automatic pistol trophies and NEVER went into schools to murder children, because THEY were in the schools to protect the innocent. This is what you get when you edify your feminine side at the expense of your strength and security. Every strong male attribute that formerly protected this nation has been assaulted by the liberal metro-sexual disempowered men by guys like Obama who now get the votes but also now get the blame when society needs immediate action and strength to react in seconds, but can only rely on politically correct redistributed government aid that arrives too late to save lives unprotected sans the diminishing values of men of action who have been driven away in false political correctness from home, school, jobs, now government.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (112 votes cast)
    • TaquoshiComment by Taquoshi
      December 19, 2012 @ 11:20 am

      Okay, I’m willing to put the blame exactly where it belongs — with Adam Lanza. Beginning, middle and end.

      I’m hearing people blame his mother, his father, his brother, the NRA, Dick’s Sporting Goods, and the dog that just ran down the street.

      The blame rests solely on Adam Lanza. He’s the one who conceived the plan and carried it out. He’s the one that murdered his mother, 6 adults and 20 school children.

      Unfortunately, he’s dead. So, now people are saying, “Oh, his mother gave him the guns.” “Oh, the NRA has blood on their hands.” “The guns were not locked up as they should have been.” “Gun manufacturers are evil.” “Gun owners are the scum of the earth.”

      No. Adam Lanza broke something like 60 or so laws, from theft to murder. Not the NRA, not his mother, father, brother, Dick’s Sporting Goods or the dog that is now trotting back up the street. Horrendous? You bet. Grievous? definitely.

      But you are not going to stop it. Not by blaming the NRA, the lack of prayer in schools, gun manufacturers or anything else, because the main problem is the individual. And taking away the freedom of the other individuals who had nothing to do with this tragedy just means we will live in a police state.

      Life is risky and there are no guarantees. You can’t say “This should never happen again.” We can take reasonable precautions, but threatening others because they own guns just shows that the threatener is in the very same place that Adam Lanza was when he was planning this. Just to be clear, that position is “If anyone gets in my way, or disagrees with me, I’ll kill them.” And that’s a very dangerous place to be.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (102 votes cast)
    • agnesdayComment by agnesday
      December 19, 2012 @ 12:12 pm

      I am responding to this comment and to the one by Taquoshi. What woman in her right mind keeps assault weapons in the home with an intelligent but unbalanced adult son? There is a serious lack of common sense here. I might also comment that adult supports for persons with autism spectrum disorders are seriously lacking in most, if not all, states. People with these disorders do pretty well in school, but when graduation hits, there is no service for them. They get placed in programs for persons with intellectual deficiencies or physical disabilities, and they fail. Then they go home, notice that their schoolmates are out getting a life, and that they don’t have one. Most of them respond with depression and anxiety, and even suicide. Then, there’s Adam Lanza. This doesn’t have to be. Also note, the only place the assault rifle was used was the Lanza home. It was not brought into the school.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.8/5 (28 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      December 19, 2012 @ 12:32 pm

      agnesday:
      You’re factually wrong about your last statement. This subject came up yesterday when I also made the mistake of referring to the AR-15 owned by Nancy Lanza as an assault weapon. It is actually a semi-automatic rifle, and Adam did steal it and bring it to the school, where it was used to fire most of the fatal bullets into the children. But I do agree with you that having a mentally unstable son should have been a clue to her to keep the guns in a location inaccessible to him such as a safe.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (33 votes cast)
    • mysticComment by mystic
      December 19, 2012 @ 2:39 pm

      For Taquoshi: I agree with 99% of your post. The part I disagree with is: Mother. This woman understood, knew and worked within her daily life of having a child who had to be physically monitored and watched every single day of his life. I assume this is due to episodes that created harm to himself or others throughout his short disturbed life. So yes, she is to blame for not getting the help her son so desperately required. Had her child had cancer, and done nothing about it, CPS (child protection service) would have removed the child due to endangerment/abuse charges. Same could be said if the child was diabetic and required insulin…and she refused on some condition that she could ‘heal’ her son and goal set him out of having diabetes. This specific young man had a disease…just not one that chemotherapy or insulin could cure.

      Having guns in the home. I don’t have an issue with this mother having guns… she followed the law, registered each one and apparently took precautions by locking said guns up. However, with a greatly mentally disturbed/mentally ill son living with her…she should have ensured there was no way for him to gain access to those guns and ammo.

      This mother had hopes, goals and dreams for her son. She so deluded herself that she could make him functional that it blinded her to a frightening reality…she couldn’t fix him. I believe it has been reported in the last 24 hours or so that she had finally come to the conclusion that her son would be better off in a ‘in care’ facility. This working theory that this young man understood that his mother was going to ‘put him away in a home/institution’ was the reason for his rage rampage not only towards her, but towards the thing she loved the most…helping and educating children.

      ….and I don’t just blame the mother. This young man had two parents. Where is his father in all this? Where is the step father in all this? Two men were frequent in this young mans life…and where are they/where were they? The mother may bare the brunt of the immediate tragedy due to deluded thinking…as well so do these two men who either were apathetic to the issue or ignored the issue allowing this woman to do as she saw fit with her mentally diseased child.

      Why was this woman allowed for so long to care for, set the care for this child. She didn’t conceive him immaculately. In that, the men in this young man’s life are equally to blame.

      No medications, no counseling, no acting psych doctor had been seeing this young man. Why? Its not as if the mother of this young man did not understand her child was in need of such. She disguised her arrogance, pride and ego within a ‘mothers love’ and ‘devotion’, thinking herself into the deluded topic of ‘I can fix him”.

      It is this very mentality that we must address as a nation. A parents love is a priceless gift to all children. However, you can literally love your child to death or tragedy. In this instance, both occurred. A mother’s love made 26 other innocents pay the price for her hopes and dreams. That’s the crux…that’s the topic…this is the focus along with Mental Health reform (that I might add Reagan tore down with a vengeance over 2 decades ago) that is so badly needed.

      ~M

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (16 votes cast)
    • waypointcComment by waypointc
      December 19, 2012 @ 3:04 pm

      For Mystic:
      The “boy’s” Mother, (he was an adult) was fighting with the courts to have him committed. He was resisting. So, she wasn’t ignoring the problem or not seeing reality at all.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (16 votes cast)
    • mysticComment by mystic
      December 19, 2012 @ 4:11 pm

      For Waypointc: The ‘details’ of exactly what she was fighting with the courts over is in a very grey area. However, lets take your post as fact.

      1st: There were heavy and direct signs with this boy/man (not going to argue age here)that a sever mental illness was present at an early age. She did NOTHING but talk about the issue.

      2nd: We do not know what she was petitioning the court for. It has been theorized that she was either turning him over to the state (disowning and or relinquishing her parental right) for a person over the age 18. Courts don’t treat over age 18 children as wards of the court. Instead one has to commit ones child (over 18) to an institution. Legalize at it’s best. Imo, with her money (being very well off in comparison to the majority of the nation)she should have privately had him under psychiatric care and or in care/committed long ago.

      3rd: No medication or recent (recent past or present past high school guidance and counseling) has been offered to this boy or committed to care since. Making a recent choice to finally get her child care after age 18 shows me a denial on her part and finally coming to a realization that all the goal setting, hopey dreamy exploits of a deluded mother was not going to make her child well.

      Lastly: Why was this one adult (the mother) in full command and in charge of the decisions and choices made for this obviously mentally ill young man? Could her new husband or the young mans father not step in and make their own demands, opinions and choices not heard? Was this mother really that powerful? I think no. I think apathy and a disregard for the distaste the situation brought was enough to keep the silence and power within her hands. Shame on those two men btw…shame on them for not standing up and participating within this young man’s needs.

      ~M

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (9 votes cast)
  5. echochamberComment by echochamber
    December 19, 2012 @ 9:44 am

    Ugh, it’s a shame that this is the response from both sides to this tragedy. The left latches on to the few gun rights proponents who feel there should be no limitation on the personal use of guns and the right mischaracterizes the concerns of half the population of the country as an attempt to completely disarm the populace. Get a grip everyone. Most support restrictions on guns. I’m sure very few gun owners would be happy with a neighbor owning an M-60 machine gun and most “liberals” would support the presence of armed security in schools. Everyone needs to respond to the true positions of each side rather than the straw men each side presents.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 2.3/5 (42 votes cast)
    • jammer182Comment by jammer182
      December 19, 2012 @ 10:17 am

      I agree with you echochamber Michelle found the most extreme comments to put in her post. You can find extreme comments from either side without even trying that hard if you’re searching the comments of keyboard gangsters on most social media sites. She could have just as easily found rational, reasoned responses to this national problem as well if she would have done her due diligence, but that wouldn’t have made for a sensational post. She has to pay the bills after all and rational and reasoned rarely does that on either side of the issue.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.5/5 (43 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 19, 2012 @ 10:19 am

      “the right mischaracterizes the concerns of half the population of the country as an attempt to completely disarm the populace” – echochamber

      This is not true.

      Lets say the weapon was a car, and it was done at a cross-walk

      How would we solve that problem?

      There would not be screams to lynch the Triple-A

      Nor would there be demands to restrict people’s ability to drive.

      We might decide to build over-passes, or close roads at particular times of the day, but we would not be vilifying cars and drivers

      However, if there was a loud voice demanding it, and they had political traction, would you be silent and not rebut their arguments?

      And the very fact we have restrictions on M-60 is because we are reasonable but also are tired of having a right restricted which does not have any reasonable bases for it.

      If a person is knowledgeable about guns, they know, instantly, there is nothing about the so called “assault weapons” that is not common to all guns

      Which gives a clue as to the direction the left is steering the debate

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (48 votes cast)
  6. mrpilkingtonComment by mrpilkington
    December 19, 2012 @ 9:46 am

    “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.
    Barack Obama

    Left wing Lunatics like Loomis are the very reason we must own guns.

    Loomis and his left wing lunatics are the perfect example of the adage, “You can’t fix stupid.”

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (61 votes cast)
    • mvotano58Comment by mvotano58
      December 19, 2012 @ 11:01 am

      Ahhh….the Chicago Way. Well you know how they are on the Left..”Do as I say not as I do”. I remember when I was a “do-good Liberal”. Thank God I came to my senses before it became chronic.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (33 votes cast)
  7. ellmanComment by ellman
    December 19, 2012 @ 9:46 am

    According to the liberal logic, it was the iceberg’s fault that the Titanic sank. Is making a death threats against law abiding gun owners protected under the first amendment? Have laws regarding slander been repealed? I agree completely with this commentary.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (41 votes cast)
    • rzraickComment by rzraick
      December 19, 2012 @ 5:41 pm

      Well actually his right to say such riduculous things is protected by the first amendment. I think this guy is a nut case and should be fired immediately. That is me excerising my right to speech freely.

      It is only in a free society where in all opinions and points of view can be expressed. The government is all up in armes wanting to limit so called “hate speech”. What they are really against is your right to critisize their policies.

      I defend all the ammendments in the Bill of rights. I do believe that some later ammendments need to be repealed and I can speak clearly in my views about that.

      In the past, people have asked me if I would support Hitler having the right of free speech. And I say that I would rather live in a free country where Hitler can speak freely, and then I can use the same right to say he is full of ****.

      I support the free speech rights of everyone. I think it is an old quote from some time ago which goes “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my last drop of blood, your right to say it.”

      I even defend Obama’s right to say whatever he wants. And I can stand up as say that he is lying which I happen to believe is a true statement.

      By the way, slander is spoken words where as libel is written or published words.

      Both laws allow someone who has had his rights damaged by either spoken or printed word of another person, have a legal remedy to demand damages. He just has to prove that that is in fact what happened. And also thereby receive vidication for eroneous and intentional acts of malice.

      It’s somewhat like what Pharroh said about Moses, “let him speak that men may know him mad.”

      So with respect to you, I say that the Bill of rights must be protected. If you support the second amendmaent, you need to support the first amendment as well.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (12 votes cast)
  8. Pingback: Gun Control is Genocide - documentary by Mike Adams - Page 5 - ALIPAC

  9. mrpilkingtonComment by mrpilkington
    December 19, 2012 @ 10:06 am

    Here is Loomis’ explanation:

    University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis is defending his angry, violent tweets on the grounds that they were metaphorical.

    So to clarify, I want to make it blindingly clear that I did not call for the assassination of Wayne LaPierre. In my world, calling for someone’s head on a stick is a metaphor to hold them responsible for their actions. I think the last time “head on a stick” actually meant murder was sometime around 1450. That anyone would take this seriously as a murder threat is completely absurd. What stinks about it is that it has now involved my family, colleagues, and university. So I’ll apologize to them and to anyone legitimately offended by my metaphor.

    Or, as he put it so eloquently yesterday,

    @ErikLoomis

    Dear right-wing morons, saying you “want someone’s head on a stick” is a metaphor. I know metaphor is hard for you to understand.—
    Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) December 18, 2012

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.5/5 (24 votes cast)
    • MorganComment by Morgan
      December 19, 2012 @ 11:57 am

      Don’t you find it always the same, Mrpilkington that some moron from the left makes outrageous comments on a public forum, then when they are called on it and their incendiary remarks are made public, all of a sudden they “apologize” as if that is going to make their remarks disappear. When Loomis wrote what he did on Twitter, he meant every word of it, and he thinks that we are so stupid as to not realize that. The guy should be fired as a professor in that college as I’m sure that he more than likely made similar remarks to his classes.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (32 votes cast)
    • agnesdayComment by agnesday
      December 19, 2012 @ 12:16 pm

      Sorry, Mr. Pilkington. You are responsible for your words. When you use inflammatory words like “head on a stick” in an emotional climate like this, you’ll have to eat them (also a metaphor. We went to school at least to the 9th grade).

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (23 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      December 19, 2012 @ 12:34 pm

      Morgan, I agree the idiot should be fired, but we both know he won’t be. After all he’s a university professor which unfortunately means he pretty much has a job for life.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (24 votes cast)
    • MorganComment by Morgan
      December 19, 2012 @ 1:04 pm

      LaPhil. Yes, he should be but he won’t. Go to this article, a companion article and there is a picture of this Loomis character. If he doesn’t look like an unhinged nut case, I don’t know who does.
      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/12/caution_contains_obscene_language_quoting.html

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (9 votes cast)
    • sargentmajorComment by sargentmajor
      December 19, 2012 @ 2:13 pm

      Hey Loomis – you stated “Dear rightwingers, to be clear, I don’t want to see Wayne LaPierre dead, I want to see him in prison for the rest of his life”…for what, you jackwagon liberal tennured ******? Hey slick, don’t appologize for what you tweeted, you said what was on your little mind, now own it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (19 votes cast)
    • rzraickComment by rzraick
      December 19, 2012 @ 3:50 pm

      I do not have any trouble understanding metaphors. Metaphors are used to express ideas. But your ideas Mr. Loomis are pretty sick. You metaphors reveal a mind set which is emotional and devoid of any logic, truth, ot rational thought.

      I have a comment which is not a metaphor. Irrational nut cases such as yourself should be removed immediately from positions in our educational system. Your metaphors are more dangerous than any gun.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (16 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      December 19, 2012 @ 4:31 pm

      Having a head on your stick could be Liberal double speak for an Anthony Weiner or Barney Frank home coming moment.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (13 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      December 19, 2012 @ 4:55 pm

      Inluminatuo, that was sheer genius! Congratulations!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
    • nostepComment by nostep
      December 20, 2012 @ 1:03 am

      I seem to be a little slow… What kind of metaphor is “needs to get beaten to death”?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
  10. bizzybuzzerComment by bizzybuzzer
    December 19, 2012 @ 10:10 am

    Loony Loomis can get by with his professing lies dressed in profanity. He is teaching in a Democratic state. Nothing is common to hear a liberal say much good about anything unless it is another liberal. Maybe it is because more liberals shoot other liberals. As for the profanity; Profanity is a feeble mind trying to express itself forcefully.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (26 votes cast)
  11. Mort_fComment by Mort_f
    December 19, 2012 @ 10:18 am

    One aspect of this tragedy will receive very little ‘ink’, and that is the entire field of mental health. As in many similar events, the perpetrator has been found to have been a deranged individual, and one that has received ‘care’ and medications from mental health ‘professionals’.

    Many years ago, in college, I wrote a term paper, ‘The Pseudo-Scientific Aspects of Freudian Psychoanalysis’. I received a grade of B, as I had a professor that would never give an engineer an A grade. Colleagues of mine, in the psychology department, copied my paper verbatim. They received A’s.

    I stand by my original thesis, the entire practice of mental health is seriously flawed, and in no way is it a science. And in many cases, the practitioners do more harm than good.

    While it is easy to detect rabies in animals, and then take corrective action, it is a far more difficult thing to detect ‘rabid’ human beings, and effect either cures or to protect society from them.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (29 votes cast)
  12. shirjayComment by shirjay
    December 19, 2012 @ 10:27 am

    How incredibly sad that a History teacher would be so misguided and so foul-mouthed! It is unimaginable that someone who is teaching our young people would voice an opinion calling for ‘murdering’ another person for disagreeing – I am talking about Loomis. If he is the star example of the teacher our young adults are learning from – no wonder they are so misguided!

    The dreadful incident in Newtown is truly awful and I am very sad for all the families involved in loss. Morality cannot be legislated, it comes with strong families who live caring Godly lives. We have turned away from the examples set by our Founding Fathers to deny our Judeo-Christian heritage and our Constitution. Our children are being denied the guidance,restrictions, and love that is their anchor.

    Everyone is very incensed by the ‘murder’ of these innocents but are they equally incensed by the ‘murder’ by abortionists daily of inconvenient innocents? We have allowed so many generations of children to be murdered that our schools and colleges are having problems finding enough students to fill some classrooms.

    Our history has many examples of incidents like Newtown and no doubt will have more as it is impossible to recognize what is in another’s mind.

    Michelle, I applaud your continuing efforts to enlighten those of us who are listening. May God continue to bless your life and family. Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (39 votes cast)
    • MorganComment by Morgan
      December 19, 2012 @ 12:01 pm

      Shirjay. You said: “I am talking about Loomis. If he is the star example of the teacher our young adults are learning from – no wonder they are so misguided! ”

      I could not agree more, and sadly, this IS the kind of bilge that our liberal colleges and universities are teaching our kids. Loomis should be fired immediately for putting his incendiary remarks.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (23 votes cast)
  13. princess71572Comment by princess71572
    December 19, 2012 @ 10:29 am

    Is it just me, or is there absolutely no logic to anything the left does? This administration willing gives weapons to rebel forces in other countries (presumably because they don’t have access to them), so they can fight their oppressive governments, yet they want to take those same weapons from citizens here. Does it not even occur to them that the reason those governments have been able to become so oppressive is because they restricted access to the very weapons that could be used against them? Do they not realize that the 2nd Amendment was designed to ensure that the citizens of the U.S.A. never find themselves in that very situation? What a bunch of morons!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (34 votes cast)
    • sargentmajorComment by sargentmajor
      December 19, 2012 @ 2:19 pm

      Princess – it’s pukes the likes of Loomis that do not now, nor will ever understand exactly what the 2nd Amendment stands for or why it was included. It is a character flaw of any and all liberals- no one needs guns for any reason, except of course their body guards. I say if the left wants to disarm us, the first to lose their weapon should be the left themselves and then their body guards. Once those loons are disarmed, God help anyone who tries to disarm the rest of us.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (14 votes cast)
    • rzraickComment by rzraick
      December 19, 2012 @ 9:08 pm

      It is not only you. logic never enters into the process for these fools, nor does rational thought. Their actions are fueled by emotionalsim and a belief in a fantasy world concocted by the collect socialist propagandists who have brought about death and destruction throughout history.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (5 votes cast)
  14. fabianComment by fabian
    December 19, 2012 @ 10:30 am

    If liberals start to shoot at us it would be a dream come true. We could shoot back and I doubt they’d win.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.2/5 (17 votes cast)
    • zyppComment by zypp
      December 19, 2012 @ 1:32 pm

      It would be better if they were to attack you with hand grenades. You could just pull the pins and throw them back. (a very old joke)

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (11 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      December 19, 2012 @ 2:53 pm

      But a good one nevertheless!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
  15. jgwollastonComment by jgwollaston
    December 19, 2012 @ 10:31 am

    Here is a comparison of Newtown and Benghazi:

    Public peaceful place versus dangerous place.
    Amateur killer versus professional killers.
    Lone killer versus team.
    Little planning versus extensive planning.
    Cost to protect huge (nationwide) versus huge (more dangerous opponents).

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.3/5 (8 votes cast)
  16. gregpComment by gregp
    December 19, 2012 @ 10:32 am

    I can not agree with you more Ms. Malkin. I read many of your columns and I appreciate the talents you recevied from God. You say it like it is and that is what our politicians fail to do – Congratulations for speacking the truth – thank you

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (22 votes cast)
  17. jwolComment by jwol
    December 19, 2012 @ 10:40 am

    Michelle you are right on as usual. Your writings are a joy to read as you tell it like it is.

    Regarding the post-Newtown witch hunt, a real solution would be to look back at the changes in our society that our children have been exposed to since about 1980 or 1990: 1. There are extremely violent movies and TV shows. 2. The realistic violent video games where killing is repeated over and over. These are seen by everyone including deranged individuals and the mentally disturbed as will as kids. Minds are being poisoned and morality is a lost issue.

    There is no way that the libs would even consider bans or any controls on violent movies, TV or video games like they would propose for guns.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (26 votes cast)
    • odayterrenceComment by odayterrence
      December 19, 2012 @ 11:30 am

      jwol – Television violence has passed beyond only the movies and shows. Look at some of the commercials themselves. A Honda commercial has a cartoon salesperson at the North Pole saying it’s his job to be helpful. One of Santa’s Elves says it’s HIS job to be helpful. Then the Elf, in true gangmember fashion, breaks off a candy cane and threatens the salesperson with a violent assault. Saying “you’re on my turf now”. Yea, one of Santa’s Elves making gangbanger behavior seem appropriate to any young viewers watching. Another car commercial has people like Santa Claus and Suzie Orman driving very recklessly and irrespossibly, not paying attention to the road while yelling at their passengers. Just so the commercial can show off the handling properties of the car. Yea, careless/reckless behavior modeled as normal. And we wonder why our society is so screwed up…while blaming guns.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (13 votes cast)
  18. thereverendComment by thereverend
    December 19, 2012 @ 10:50 am

    After reading this lunatic professor’s comments about the NRA, I’m calling today to renew my membership! Count me among those supporting this “terrorist organization”!

    What a nutjob…and the universities are full of them, and they’re the ones that get the most press!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (29 votes cast)
    • sargentmajorComment by sargentmajor
      December 19, 2012 @ 2:23 pm

      Me too! In fact, I have decided on a life-time membership just to tick Loomas off. Oh, and by the way Loomis – when you feel the urge, come on down to Texas and try to take my gun. ;-)

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (16 votes cast)
  19. callenComment by callen
    December 19, 2012 @ 11:00 am

    Here’s the questions that gun-rights advocates don’t ever want to address – why do we need guns that can be used to fire multiple shots in very short time frames, and high(er) capacity magazines? Rememeber this guy shot all of these victims multiple times – one child was shot 11 times. Think about that for a minute – 11 times! Don’t tell me you need to be able to fire that many shots in a short time frame to defend yourself – is there a whole neighborhood of hoodlums breaking in to your house at night? I understand the desire to have some/certain guns, the use of some and the (very limited) NEED to have guns as responsible/law-abiding situations, and even the argument that law-abiding people need guns just so those that have less desirable intentions have to think twice about doing things. But surely there’s some reasonable ground that can be reached to limit the amount of bullets and speed that so many guns be utilized – the design of those have NO purpose other than mass destruction.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.5/5 (24 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 19, 2012 @ 11:56 am

      “Here’s the questions that gun-rights advocates don’t ever want to address – why do we need guns that can be used to fire multiple shots in very short time frames, and high(er) capacity magazines?” – callen

      Are you sure they don’t want to answer or you don’t like the answer?

      All guns with one barrel are only capable of firing one shot at a time

      All guns are capable of firing multiple rounds

      It is the interval between and that depends on a lot of factors.

      The fastest six shots are from a revolver

      The main factor to shooting lots of rounds is having lots of ammo

      Then it is how fast it can be delivered, then the firing pin
      firing

      So how fast of an interval between rounds do you think is necessary and please tell what you are basing your answer on, being able to shoot the gun or controlling others who do?

      It has been my observation, most points of view about guns, which are in opposition, are from a basic ignorance about guns

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (18 votes cast)
    • callenComment by callen
      December 19, 2012 @ 2:14 pm

      Great Jota – thanks for the “education” and of course, not answering the question I posed. So the fastest six shots are from a revolver. How often do you think anyone trying to defend themselves/their will need more than six shots? If the psycho-who-I-won’t-name had a weapon with a maximum capacity of six shots, how many people would have been killed? While this deranged 20-year old would have been reloading, what do you think would have happened? Do you think he would have emptied his gone twice into ONE CHILD, much less all the shots into the other victims? So take whatever weapon you like as far as “interval speed” etc. – why do you need a high capacity gun/cartridge? What PRACTICAL PURPOSE does it serve in a civilian arena other than mass killing?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.4/5 (11 votes cast)
    • rzraickComment by rzraick
      December 19, 2012 @ 5:11 pm

      You ask a very meaningless question and miss the point entirely. It is not the type of guns being used, it is the princple that guns of any kind, used to defend life and against all threats to life which will eventually come fron a tyranical government is the reason we have the 2nd amendment.

      The first amendment was put in place to limit the power of government so free people could voice their opposition to a government moving toward tyrany.

      The second amendment was put in place to say, in no uncertain terms, that the govenment cannot disarm the people who would be defensless against a government which has become tyrannical.

      You still want to give that power to the government in some manner, based on your idea of why do people need to have their rights to defend themselves. Your argument is based on an emotional reaction, and I am certain you are sincere. But allowing the government to dictate anything about gun ownership is the point.

      You don’t understand why people might want automatic weapons. You might change your thinking when the tyranical government armed with tanks and bombs decides that you are their target.

      I personally think that if a person wants to own a tank, he should be allowed to do so.

      This may seem to you and extreme view, but in principle it is a correct view.

      I don’t want that right for lunatics, criminals or tyrants.

      But I think we are well on our way to having criminals, lunatics and tyrants running the government.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (10 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 20, 2012 @ 12:23 am

      “How often do you think anyone trying to defend themselves/their will need more than six shots?” – callen

      At least 10.5 billion times, which is a rough estimate of the number of rounds fired from guns with a capacity greater than six rounds, all in defense, and another couple tens of billion in offense.

      Those guns were designed because they were needed to defend. What you are trying to claim is you don’t need them because others fight for you. Typical liberal, you don’t need them because others fight for you

      Sure, I know you think you can lay safe in your bed because someone has always taken care of you, then think you are a big boy, but at least one of us knows that is not true

      Am still looking for confirmation, but have read the wicked looking rifle was left in the trunk and he only used hand guns, which do not have a magazine capable of holding more than fifteen rounds, most likely nine.

      Which means he had a lot of ammo NOT a lot in any one magazine

      If this turns out to be true your whole argument falls apart

      If is not the size of the magazine but how much ammo, and if you think you are going to limit the American people to a couple rounds and put their lives at risk in addition, you are in for a fight.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 20, 2012 @ 12:56 am

      “why do you need a high capacity gun/cartridge? What PRACTICAL PURPOSE does it serve in a civilian arena other than mass killing? – callen

      Guarantee always a civil arena and I will concede the argument

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • nostepComment by nostep
      December 20, 2012 @ 1:20 am

      callen,
      No one seems to be answering you about the high capacity mags.
      I would like to have them because:
      1.) Price. Three 10 round mags cost almost 3 times as much as a 25 round mag.
      2.) Time and range fees. I got a 22 to teach my son how to shoot. This is Calif. so finding a place to shoot is difficult. $20/hr for range fees. I had one 10 round mag and spent 70% of my time reloading the stupid mag instead of teaching and observing what my kid was doing. What a waste.
      Fast firing times… high rate of fire. Ever hunt rats? I used to when I was a kid. They are very fast, especially when being shot at. Didn’t have box mags then, used tubular mag that held 18 rounds. Sometimes that was not enough.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 20, 2012 @ 1:26 am

      “one child was shot 11 times. Think about that for a minute – 11 times! Don’t tell me you need to be able to fire that many shots in a short time frame to defend yourself” – callen

      I do not want to think about it.

      However, you are telling me you know it is unnecessary. I agree! Yet you some how wish to argue that since a lessor number would be just as deadly, limiting the size of the magazine would change the number of dead?

      You are arguing against yourself

      When you can grasp your own argument then you will see the futility of making such an argument, that with a smaller magazine, nothing would have changed

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
  20. DanComment by Dan
    December 19, 2012 @ 11:04 am

    Am I crazy?!? I don’t truly, truly am incapable of understanding how these left wingers get by without all conservatives calling them out and screaming one thing at every opportunity. They are the most violent people I have ever seen or heard! Every, and I mean every, instance where liberals are involved in protests or arguments against “right wing” or conservative values THEY ACT LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!
    The first thing they do is call for the heads of innocents, scream about beating someone, use vulgarities and they tear up personal property, and not theirs. They call conservatives hateful racists, claim that they want to kill babies and old ladies, make women have babies against their will, pollute the air and water destroy the land. Yet when one follows their “progressive” program they are doing exactly what they say conservatives are doing??! What in the world is up with that? They are the ones responsible for over 50,000,000 child killings in the last 50 years. They are the ones responsible for the new “death panels” that will kill old ladies and men. They are responsible for the racism that is growing more every day, primarily by our president and his cronies. They say we want to take women back to 50 years and take away their rights.
    I say if you want to know how conservatives treat women, especially in public, ask Laura Bush, ask Barbara Bush,
    ask Ann Romney, ask Mrs Ryan, ask Mrs Rubio. If you want to know how liberals treat women check out Jackie Kennedy’s memoirs, ask Hillary Clinton, ask Monica Lewinsky, check the past events in the late Elizabeth Edwards marriage.
    It boggles my mind why this is not what is being told day after day, month after month. I know we can’t count on the media. But we can sure make a part of our personal daily conversations every where we go. Racism?? Who sees it in everything everywhere? Liberals! Who were the slave owners? Democrats! Who fought against the civil rights legislation?? Democrats! I am so tired of mamby pamby conservatives that don’t know how to fight. Do you really know why the liberals walk all over us?? Because they can! Word of mouth is and has always been the best advertisement. Stop defending and backing up! Go on the offensive! research and tell the truth as loud and as often as you can.
    Who wouldn’t despise lowly acting, cowering people who just sit back and allow those that will to desecrate every value and moral that we say we stand for. GET UP! STAND UP! SOUND OFF! STOP MAKING DEALS WITH THE DEVIL!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (48 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      December 19, 2012 @ 12:41 pm

      Dan, I don’t see how anyone could have given your post less than five stars.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (16 votes cast)
  21. shafawnComment by shafawn
    December 19, 2012 @ 11:07 am

    No transparency, corruption to the bone, zero accountability.. that’s what you expect from socialist governments. Every week and every month this administration will bite off as big of chunks as they can assume to swallow and will eat up our freedoms and liberty like locusts.

    Why do we bear arms according to Noah Webster?
    1. To prevent rule by a standing army;
    2. To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws;
    3. To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive;
    4. The people bearing arms should be SUPERIOR to an army controlled by Congress.
    Was Noah Webster a terrorist?

    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788
    Was Patrick Henry a terrorist?

    The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson

    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: 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.
    Was Thomas Jefferson a terrorist?

    Thomas Jefferson would SPIT on this administration and take up arms against it!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (34 votes cast)
  22. budsterzComment by budsterz
    December 19, 2012 @ 11:09 am

    Most violence begins with malice in the heart. It wouldn’t matter if it was a gun, a sword, a spear or a rock, it begins in the heart. A Left Leaner asked me if I thought stricter gun controls was the answer, I replied no, but felt I should qualify that with some research. The basic findings are as follows. Gun related homicides are 9078 in 2010. Divided by the population of the US (314000000 as per Usdebtclock.org) equals one death per 34,590 people or .000025 percent of the population. Where as Latrogenic Deaths in this country are approximately 200,000 per year ( Latrogenic-medically related). Your odds of dying from a medical related incident are one in 1570 people. Or, 18 percent of the population will die from the Medical Establishment. I’ll take my chances with a gun, they seem to be much safer.
    Mexico had approximately 12,000 gun related homicides last year and have the tightest gun laws in North America which seems to lend credence to the addage “if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns”. The UK has undeniably the toughest gun laws on the planet. In 2011 they had 130,000 edged weapon assaults. I haven’t been able to locate reliable statistics on homicides.
    If a person is so-inclined, it would not matter the means. Sadly schools, theaters, banks Ad Infinitum are soft targets. A man with malice in his heart is generaly a wimp, and doesn’t want to get killed whilst killing people. I give you Timothy McVay or Gerold Laughner or that psycho that gunned down the 83 kids in Scandinavia. He at least was sentenced to the max under liberal lawm, 7 years in prison.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (17 votes cast)
    • callenComment by callen
      December 19, 2012 @ 2:21 pm

      It’s clear that gun related deaths are not statistically high, and yes, someone could use a sword or knife, or rock. And perhaps the frequency of those is higher than gun violence – but let me know the next time someone brings a rock to a school and kills 26 people. I’m not suggesting outlawing/prohibiting guns – just the guns and equipment that provide the opportunity to discharge a high quantity of bullets in a short-period of time without reloading (or rapid reloading as clips/cartridges are traded out).

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.0/5 (10 votes cast)
  23. shafawnComment by shafawn
    December 19, 2012 @ 11:11 am

    Don’t just complain here. Copy paste your comments and beliefs and write to your representatives in congress! Make your voice heard!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (13 votes cast)
  24. odayterrenceComment by odayterrence
    December 19, 2012 @ 11:18 am

    So…Professor Loomis is implies, if not all-out states, that NRA members are equal to terrorists. Considering the NRA is full of patriotic citizens wishing to defend all rights for all citizens (even Professor Loomis), he has a strange definition of “terrorist”. Let’s not forget that huge numbers of police are NRA members. Who will Professor Loomis call if he is in danger? Terrorists! We have members of Congress and top military officials as NRA members. Guess they are terrorists too. Millions of citizens across our nation are NRA terrorists. Why are we fighting a “War on Terror” overseas against a few thousand terrorists? According to Professor Loomis, we have millions of terrorists already here and in top levels of government. We’ve lost the war!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (17 votes cast)
  25. starblueTNComment by starblueTN
    December 19, 2012 @ 11:20 am

    AMEN PAT ! That is exactly the way it is. After all, the left wouldn’t want to waste an opportunity to take advantage of this tragedy and claim it is in the name of the children. They are USING the innocent lives lost to come across as concerned and caring. WHO ARE THEY FOOLING ?
    I am so tired of the left wing liberal communists brainwashing the young and the dumb, killing babies, etc. etc. They make me sick and anyone who believes their rhetoric is unbelievably stupid !

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (17 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





  • "Not long ago the head of the EPA admitted that the measures we are taking do not amount to a..." Comment by oldsarge
    Posted in The Environmental Corruption Agency
  • "Ms. Malkin: Congratulations for your evaluation of the EPA... a cesspool of cronyism and outrageous cover ups. You hit the nail right..." Comment by peletier
    Posted in The Environmental Corruption Agency
  • "We might just as well call them the GEPA, ( THE GOVERNMENTAL, INVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY) What the hell have documents got..." Comment by freedomfighter
    Posted in The Environmental Corruption Agency

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer