TexasCHLforum.com

Unbelievable. The article illustrates comments that are beyond belief.

I think the focus here is the blatant disregard for our constitutional rights and the rabid disregard for our freedoms. I fail to understand how people like this can actually exist in today's world.


http://bearingarms.com/moms-demand-supp ... ampaign=nl

Anyugunanywhere

The comments mention the 911 "SWAT"ter that contributed to the Beavercreek OH Wal-mart shooting. Well, Mr. Ritchie faces some serious criminal and civil risk because the statements he made in the 911 call, time-synched to the Wal-mart CCTV video, show he was lying and exaggerating.

I know if I was the victim's family, I would make it my personal mission to destroy Mr. Ritchie's life as he knew it.

Where is any tie to MDA? I read the article and the claim that posts are made by MAD supporters, but it doesn't say where they were made nor was there a link. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but with so many bogus claims and quotes on both sides of gun issues, I would expect reputable bloggers to document claims with links to the source.

I love it when anti-gunners make false claims about guns and gun owners. It's not so much fun when allegedly pro-gun people do likewise.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Where is any tie to MAD? I read the article and the claim that posts are made by MAD supporters, but it doesn't say where they were made nor was there a link. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but with so many bogus claims and quotes on both sides of gun issues, I would expect reputable bloggers to document claims with links to the source.

I love it when anti-gunners make false claims about guns and gun owners. It's not so much fun when allegedly pro-gun people do likewise.

Chas.

If you click on the link at the end of the third paragraph it takes you here:

https://www.facebook.com/MomsDemandActi ... permPage=1

The pic is on the Facebook page. There are tons of the same comments on that Facebook link like the ones in the article I originally posted.

If you click on the link in the caption under the photo at the above link it takes you here:

http://momsdemandaction.org/groceriesnotguns/

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Where is any tie to MAD? I read the article and the claim that posts are made by MAD supporters, but it doesn't say where they were made nor was there a link. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but with so many bogus claims and quotes on both sides of gun issues, I would expect reputable bloggers to document claims with links to the source.

Thanks, Chas.. That's my take too.
First, the title is way inflated - probably because it's taken from the webpage.
The webpage cites some internet commentary from facebook, but it doesn't actually show the link of those people to the MAD organization or any official policy.

It could be compared to taking statements on this forum and attributing them to the NRA...

But we all know that stuff like this tends to spread like wildfire.. Which is why people do it... It gets repeated without any fact checking at all.

I don't know what MAD has to do with it and don't really see the relevance. The first reflex of those on the left is to wish death upon anyone who disagrees with them and we can see this not only in these comments, but following related anti-gun articles at places like HuffPo and the Daily KOS. They don't even have to be gun related articles, they wish death upon Christians, "tea partiers," Republicans, NRA members, southerners, red necks, and any one else that dares oppose their much longed for utopia. These comments are especially ironic because they represent just what the antis say about people who own guns.....that they wish for an opportunity to kill. It's also ironic because none of these would be Rambos has the means to "take out" someone with a gun, and because if they did, then by their own logic, they'd be subject to the same summary execution. The only sure thing about a lefty is that logic and rational thought have no place in their world of self-delusion.

VMI77 wrote:I don't know what MAD has to do with it and don't really see the relevance. The first reflex of those on the left is to wish death upon anyone who disagrees with them and we can see this not only in these comments, but following related anti-gun articles at places like HuffPo and the Daily KOS. They don't even have to be gun related articles, they wish death upon Christians, "tea partiers," Republicans, NRA members, southerners, red necks, and any one else that dares oppose their much longed for utopia. These comments are especially ironic because they represent just what the antis say about people who own guns.....that they wish for an opportunity to kill. It's also ironic because none of these would be Rambos has the means to "take out" someone with a gun, and because if they did, then by their own logic, they'd be subject to the same summary execution. The only sure thing about a lefty is that logic and rational thought have no place in their world of self-delusion.

I think Charles meant MDA... (Mothers Demand Action, not Muscular Dystrophy Assn.)

sjfcontrol wrote:

VMI77 wrote:I don't know what MAD has to do with it and don't really see the relevance. The first reflex of those on the left is to wish death upon anyone who disagrees with them and we can see this not only in these comments, but following related anti-gun articles at places like HuffPo and the Daily KOS. They don't even have to be gun related articles, they wish death upon Christians, "tea partiers," Republicans, NRA members, southerners, red necks, and any one else that dares oppose their much longed for utopia. These comments are especially ironic because they represent just what the antis say about people who own guns.....that they wish for an opportunity to kill. It's also ironic because none of these would be Rambos has the means to "take out" someone with a gun, and because if they did, then by their own logic, they'd be subject to the same summary execution. The only sure thing about a lefty is that logic and rational thought have no place in their world of self-delusion.

I think Charles meant MDA... (Mothers Demand Action, not Muscular Dystrophy Assn.)

I figured that out later....though I originally took it as Mother Against Drunk Drivers. Either way, my point is that regardless of who is spouting it, the rhetoric cited exemplifies the attitude of the left: opponents must be exterminated.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Where is any tie to MAD? I read the article and the claim that posts are made by MAD supporters, but it doesn't say where they were made nor was there a link. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but with so many bogus claims and quotes on both sides of gun issues, I would expect reputable bloggers to document claims with links to the source.

I love it when anti-gunners make false claims about guns and gun owners. It's not so much fun when allegedly pro-gun people do likewise.

Chas.

If you click on the link at the end of the third paragraph it takes you here:

https://www.facebook.com/MomsDemandActi ... permPage=1

The pic is on the Facebook page. There are tons of the same comments on that Facebook link like the ones in the article I originally posted.

If you click on the link in the caption under the photo at the above link it takes you here:

http://momsdemandaction.org/groceriesnotguns/

Thanks. Those links prove my point; there's no connection with MDA as the article states. The link to the MDA website doesn't contain anything calling for the murder of people openly-carrying guns. While the Facebook page, if it is legitimate, does contain posts my some loons, there's no basis for claiming they are "supporters" of MDA. Anyone can post on any organization's Facebook page. I could post on OCT's Facebook page, but calling me a "supporter" of OCT could not be further from the truth.

Again, overstating one's argument doesn't help our issue and it appears that the article did just that.
Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Again, overstating one's argument doesn't help our issue and it appears that the article did just that.

To me, criticizing supporters of a group is a cheap ploy. It's like when the media makes a big deal out of the fact that somebody is an NRA member, as in, "The legislator carrying the new gun control bill says he is a long-time member of the NRA," or, "The killer's Facebook profile describes him as a member of the NRA." Joining some group's Facebook page or paying a $25 annual due doesn't make you a representative of that group. If it did, I'd join Moms Demand Action and then streak across the White House lawn, wearing nothing but an elephant thong.

Bladed wrote:To me, criticizing supporters of a group is a cheap ploy. It's like when the media makes a big deal out of the fact that somebody is an NRA member, as in, "The legislator carrying the new gun control bill says he is a long-time member of the NRA," or, "The killer's Facebook profile describes him as a member of the NRA." Joining some group's Facebook page or paying a $25 annual due doesn't make you a representative of that group. If it did, I'd join Moms Demand Action and then streak across the White House lawn, wearing nothing but an elephant thong.

It is obvious that this attitude of not criticizing a group's supporters is not held by everyone since the OC supporters seem to be fair game.

It is the supporters of a group that makes the group. The NRA is the members. MDA is the supporters. If no one supported them they would go away. The antis especially the media listen to them and helps spread their message.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

Bladed wrote:To me, criticizing supporters of a group is a cheap ploy. It's like when the media makes a big deal out of the fact that somebody is an NRA member, as in, "The legislator carrying the new gun control bill says he is a long-time member of the NRA," or, "The killer's Facebook profile describes him as a member of the NRA." Joining some group's Facebook page or paying a $25 annual due doesn't make you a representative of that group. If it did, I'd join Moms Demand Action and then streak across the White House lawn, wearing nothing but an elephant thong.

It is obvious that this attitude of not criticizing a group's supporters is not held by everyone since the OC supporters seem to be fair game.

It is the supporters of a group that makes the group. The NRA is the members. MDA is the supporters. If no one supported them they would go away. The antis especially the media listen to them and helps spread their message.

Anygunanywhere

These types of groups on Facebook do nothing but attract Internet trolls. These people who comment are only looking for an outlet to post their shocking message or tag onto other's post in hopes of getting someone to argue with.

I will bet if you go look at the individuals other posts 90%+ of them are doing the same thing in other groups and they have no real interest in the group itself, just that it's a place to post their over the top comments.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Bladed wrote:To me, criticizing supporters of a group is a cheap ploy. It's like when the media makes a big deal out of the fact that somebody is an NRA member, as in, "The legislator carrying the new gun control bill says he is a long-time member of the NRA," or, "The killer's Facebook profile describes him as a member of the NRA." Joining some group's Facebook page or paying a $25 annual due doesn't make you a representative of that group. If it did, I'd join Moms Demand Action and then streak across the White House lawn, wearing nothing but an elephant thong.

It is obvious that this attitude of not criticizing a group's supporters is not held by everyone since the OC supporters seem to be fair game.

I didn't see any posts saying that people who call for the murder of gun owners should not be criticized. What I and others have argued is that there's absolutely no evidence that any of the loons calling for the murder of open-carriers are "supporters" of MDA as the article expressly alleged. The people posting on the MDA Facebook site may or may not be members and they may or may not be "supporters" either with they money or their participation in MDA events. The posts could even have been from radical open-carry supporters in an attempt to make it appear that "MDA supporters" are calling for people to be murdered. I'm not saying this is the case; I'm saying that one can never be confident of the identity or motives of people posting on a Facebook page.

As for criticism of "OC supporters," the only such criticism I've seen has been directed at the harmful tactics of OCT, OCTC, and CATI that are making it more difficult to pass open-carry.

anygunanywhere wrote:It is the supporters of a group that makes the group. The NRA is the members. MDA is the supporters. If no one supported them they would go away.

I guess this hinges on your definition of a "supporter." The NRA is made up of its five million Members, not the 150 million+ Americans who agree with and vote with the NRA.

There's nothing wrong with the article condemning any low life who would call for or relish the murder of an innocent person; indeed, everyone should add their voice. However, claiming that such nutjobs are somehow connected with MDA is not only unfair, it hurts our side of the debate. I have absolutely no use for Bloomberg or MDA, but no one in their right mind can believe that either would condone, much less encourage, anyone to call for the murder of gun owners. Doing so would only work against their stated goals by alienating the organization from all but the most vile of Americans.

As a trial lawyer, I love it when I can catch an opposing witness in either an outright lie, or stretching the truth to support their side of the case. Once a party has lost credibility with the jury, it's virtually impossible to regain it. So it is with politics.

Chas.

anygunanywhere wrote:It is obvious that this attitude of not criticizing a group's supporters is not held by everyone since the OC supporters seem to be fair game.

That's a fair statement if you're referring to criticism aimed at an OC supporter who holds no official position within any group and who is carrying out an action not endorsed, condoned, or facilitated by any group. However, most of the criticism I've seen has been directed toward group leaders, participants in group events, or actions a group chose to applaud/condone after the fact. An organizer or leader for a group can't control what a member posts on Facebook or does on the member's own time, but an organizer or leader does have some control over what members do while participating in group marches, protests, and events. Furthermore, an organizer or leader has an obligation to distance the group from dangerous, destructive, and unethical behavior and from persons known to engage in such behavior. For example, if members taking part in an open carry protest start harassing or stalking passersby who speak out against open carry, the organizers of that protest are deserving of criticism if they make no attempt to stop the action and take no steps (e.g., banishing the offending members) to prevent a repeat occurrence.

Rather than taking steps to prevent dangerous, destructive, and unethical behavior, most of the OC groups seem to take a "the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your mission" approach to such behavior. They make no attempt to stop it (and, arguably, even encourage it) until the media or an opposing group challenges them on it; then they throw up their hands and proclaim, "It wasn't us!"