Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Pro-Gun Woman Scolds Dem Senator: ‘You Are Not a Woman Stuck in Her House, Having to Defend Her Children’

Jan. 30, 2013 3:48pm Jason Howerton

Pro Gun Woman Gayle Trotter Scolds Dem Senator During Senate Hearings on Gun Violence

WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 30: Independent Women’s Forum Senior Fellow Gayle Trotter testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about gun control on Capitol Hill January 30, 2013 in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty Images

Individuals on both sides of the gun control debate provided testimony during Wednesday morning’s U.S. Senate hearings on gun violence. Speaking in favor of firearms, Independent Women’s Forum Fellow Gayle Trotter ripped Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) for misunderstanding the Second Amendment and advocating for a ban on semi-automatic rifles.

Sen. Whitehouse used one specific example of an 18-year-old Oklahoma mom who shot and killed a home invader with a 12-gauge shotgun, which he said would not be banned under Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) gun control legislation.

“It proves the point that with ordinary firearms, not 100-magazine, peculiar types of artifacts — people are quite capable of defending themselves,” he added. For the record, no one is fighting for 100 round magazines and it’s unclear if he is referring to a specific incident.

“I respectfully disagree,” the woman replied.

She continued: “I understand your also a graduate from the University of Virginia School of Law and you were close to Monticello where Thomas Jefferson penned our Declaration of Independence and close to Montpelier where James Madison was instrumental in drafting the Bill of Rights. I think you can understand that, as a woman, it is very important not to place undue burdens on our Second Amendment right to choose to defend ourself.”

Whitehouse was unmoved and reiterated the fact that the woman who defended her home used a 12-gauge shotgun. which would be “perfectly allowed.”

“Would it have been unreasonable for her to use a different gun to protect her child,” Trotter replied calmly.

The Democratic senator again when back to “100-round” magazines, saying: “I think if she was using a ’100 weapon’…Let me put it another way. She would clearly have an adequate ability to protect her family without the need for a 100-round piece of weaponry.”

Slightly annoyed, Trotter then made the argument that women are left defenseless in certain situations and are forced to defend themselves and their children from threats. She told Whitehouse, being a “large man” couldn’t understand. Then she tore into him.

“You are not a young mother who has a young child with her,” she said. “And I am passionate about this position because you cannot understand, you are not a woman stuck in her house, having to defend her children, not able to leave her child, not able to seek safety, on the phone with 911, and she cannot get the police there fast enough to protect her child, and she is not used to being in a fire fight.”

With no additional point to make, the senator said his “point” was that the mother defended herself and her child using “lawful firearms.”

Watch the video via CSPAN/Mediaite below:

Featured image via Getty

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (243)

Tri-ox
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:26pm
obama and his democrats/liberals have made it clear that they think law-abiding women should surrender their weapons, their children and their lives, to make society safer and more pleasant for criminals.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Gold Coin & Economic News
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:48pm
  And RINO Joe Scarborough thinks it is the freakin NRA that is the biggest threat to the 2nd Amendment. This is just pure insanity. It is democrats and liberals that are the biggest threat to the Constitution and the entire country:
  http://www.isthatbaloney.com/joe-scarborough-thinks-extremism-from-the-nra-is-the-greatest-threat-to-the-2nd-amendment/
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:54pm
  Okay, I have to admit to those like ENCINOM who will scream like little girls about having to take a lot of training when it come to combat reloading of the the Remington 870 shotgun. But, damned if it can be done if you know what you know what you are doing and have been trained to do! It is called practice, practice, practice for those of us in the real world,
  
  Report this comment
- muffythetuffy
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 5:01pm
  IT IS NO USE TRYING TO REASON WITH DEMOCRATS, THE MORE YOU DO THE MORE DETERMINED THEY ARE TO DESTROY YOU
  
  That Senator is now out to destroy that mother and if necessary her kids. That face is now on the computer terminal of every news media person in America: ENEMY. If Democrats can blackmail, frame or destroy some Republican to force them to vote for this gun ban they will do it. Democrats killed families and children at the Waco, Texas massacre and at the Ruby Ridge assassination of the Weaver family.
  
  Report this comment
- WillG
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 5:05pm
  Every citizen has the right to defend themselves. Whether it be woman,man,young,old it does not make any difference. Let me be clear,Legislators pass what ever additional gun laws you wish. My self and many others will not comply. If you personally do not want a firearm or are scared of them whatever the case may be that is your right. I will not allow you to dictate to me what I choose to defend my family and my self with.
  
  Report this comment
- Godfather.1
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 5:21pm
  @muffythetuffy
  
  Who was president when Ruby Ridge happened. I’ll give you a hint, it was not a Democrat. But nice try.
  
  Report this comment
- Godfather.1
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 5:24pm
  @WillG
  
  Absolutely. In fact, if you want to protect your family with a rocket launcher, a tank, or an Apache helicopter, you should have that right. Who cares if you blow up half your neighborhood defending yourself.
  
  Report this comment
- turkey13
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 5:32pm
  I know about the 18 year old here in Oklahoma that saved herself and her baby from a crazed dummy with the shotgun. We train them young here. As my 4 grand sons become age 5 they get a .22 singel shot bolt action Cricket rifle for their birthday like their grand father did them 30 + years ago, except it had a different name then. They only get to go out with adult supervision and have always been taught not to even point a toy gun at someone else.
  
  Report this comment
- turkey13
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 5:40pm
  When he said it wouldn’t ban the 18 year olds shotgun she should have jumped him about the 12 year old here. In October of 2012 in Durant, Oklahoma a girl home alone during fall break was frightened when a guy kept ringing the doorbell and knocking on the door. She called her mother and mom told her to get her .40 semi- auto glock and get in the bathroom hall closet. While on the phone with 911 the girl heard the guy break in and sure enough – 6 minuits later she saw the door open. The police arrested the guy out front with a stomach wound. This gun would be banned!
  
  Report this comment
- Jenny Lind
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 5:45pm
  Gold Coin- Scarborough is a total a… He is sound and fury meaning absolutely zip, nada, etc. Giving weight to him is stupid, his words and understanding are not there. You cannot think this country will not figure it out, or we are lost. I have faith that those who already are not sure will figure it out and get on board, but we really have to do some work to help them-off the keyboard and in real life. Blogging is not the answer, we have to talk to the people in our life to effect change. One person at a time. Hang in there and let your voice be heard. Lock and load.
  
  Report this comment
- jcldwl
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 5:54pm
  The republicans will cave. If not, the dems will steal the house and keep the senate and it will all be over then. These people are a vicious, evil, enemy of God and the state. The regime is in an all out bash of republicans and blaming them for all the problems. We intelligent people are awake. The low information voters are enslaved by the regime and the MSM and will vote against whomever they tell them too.
  
  Report this comment
- Al Gator
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 6:35pm
  Ratz get their fangs into a talking point and then they get lock jaw.
  
  In fairness, let us do the same. When the king talking point parrot head pierced moron squawks: “But why do you NEED something with THAT many bullets?”
  
  The answer is a simple five words: “Because the tyrant has one.”
  
  Stick to just those five words, and parrot heads like that buffoon ratings whore, pierced moron, will suffer sudden and traumatic head injuries as their craniums will in fact explode.
  
  Sink your fangs into it, and repeat it at every turn. Ignore their stupid fartgas like “oh, that’ll NEVER happen.
  
  Pierced reminds me of a stooge reporter from ABC New York going through the war zone left by hurricane Andrew. The metro man just couldn’t understand why everyone was carrying weapons. In all sincerity the duffus looked around and said to the camera: “I don’t know why the NEED for all the gunz, I don’t see any looters around here!”
  
  The irony was lost on the stupid fool.
  
  Critical thinking is NOT something moon bats are good at.
  
  Report this comment
- Kevin
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 6:40pm
  @GodFather
  And who was president when the Waco siege happened? I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t a Republican.
  
  You’re probably the 7th or 8th person I’ve heard use the rocket launcher/tank/nuclear warhead argument. Really? That’s the “logical” conclusion that you jump to? That’s your end game? I’ve been around fire arms my entire life and I have yet to hear a single gun owner say anything about owning a tank or a rocket launcher.
  
  Report this comment
- oldguy49
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 6:43pm
  oh crap……………i got tired of watching the libs carrying on so i turned off the tube a bore sighted my laser’s on my carry and my tactical mini14……got my clips in november right after the election……….boy are they worth more now!!!
  
  Report this comment
- amtsoundsmith
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 7:19pm
  As soon as there is a couple shooting involving a shotgun they will then ban those as well.
  
  Report this comment
- neverwaiver
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 7:27pm
  Are you kidding me? This guy doesn’t even have a clue about what types of weapons he’s talking about. We have people making decisions about this that can’t even speak fluently about the different types of weapons that exist! This is insane. It’s just insane.
  
  Report this comment
- Unix
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 7:28pm
  Indeed, let’s use dead children to strip the 2A…then Ozero can finish the fundamental transformation from usa to ussa, as he and the dumbocrats (with help from RINO’s) have already destroyed that pesky economy. Prepare!
  
  Report this comment
- BigSky
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 8:00pm
  So according to the left, women have the right to murder their child, but they have no right to protect it from undue harm in their home.
  
  Report this comment
- Al Gator
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 8:01pm
  @amtsoundsmith
  
  Isn’t this what happened in either Australia or New Zealand or Scotland of some place where guys have lost their ******? Some guy went round the bend with a pump shotgun. Now, you can’t own a pump shotgun in the land of Oz where it happened. It MAY have been Tazmania. (Sorry, age and Wild Turkey have dulled the memory.)
  
  Anyone with any knowledge knows that a shotgun loaded with double or triple 0 is a far more devastating weapon than any so called “assault rifle”, in a crowded room.
  
  But since the commie pigs are on a piecemeal approach, first its the “assault rifle”, next its your “street sweeper” (Oh, wait, they were already banned) and then, its your pump shotgun that the “One” uses for “skeet shooting.”
  
  Hey, Low Info voters, believe that the “One” goes skeet shooting?
  
  Have I got a deal for you! I have a few muni bonds left on the last refinance of the Brooklyn Bridge. High Yields! Government Backed! And for you, at a discount! Pick up the phone and call!!
  
  The Tyrant is upon us.
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 8:35pm
  This is what you must now:
  
  Wen is The Blaze gonna post the story about the old white redneck who shot that kid who pulled into his driveway after getting wrong GPA directions? Didn’t ask them who they were or what they wanted. Just walked out and started shooting. Typical NRA idiot. Your day is coming, folks.
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 8:45pm
  Ms or Mrs Senseless
  Can we make a date? Will you be happy with your fate? Alas, no more wanker debate. Pick a time, place or state.
  
  This is what you don’t know.
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 8:48pm
  Mr or Ma FUBARED,
  
  This is what you must know:
  
  Fallujah. Friday. Noon. Call if you need directions.
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 9:05pm
  Ms or Mrs Senseless
  But what of your panties my friend? Sand in them again. You cannot save them twice. Tells us of first heroic stand you made.
  
  This is why you blow
  
  Report this comment
- NOTYERHUCKLEBERRY
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 9:17pm
  Kevin missed the point. Under the strictest sense of the second amendment, I can own anything the military owns, I just have to have the bucks. This means I can have a nuke!
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 9:57pm
  Mr or Ms FUBARED,
  
  This is what you must know:
  
  Taking another rain check, eh? That’s OK. We understand. Somebody needs to stay behind and wax the admiral’s dolphin.
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
- Lt_Scrounge
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 10:48pm
  rjj, I have a friend who is VERY proficient with firearms, and when his house was invaded by three Obama voters at 1:30 in the morning, he emptied his 12 ga pump before they exited his home, and was sitting with a pistol (that would be banned under the Feinstein bill) in one hand and a cell phone in the other waiting for the police to arrive. They never came up the stairs, or he’d have had to rely on hitting them with the handgun in the pitch black interior of the house. In the stairwell, that might not have been too hard, but with the time it takes for someone to die from anything but a head shot, anyone want to bet what his life expectancy would have been had the three thugs tried to come up those stairs? It took the police under 4 minutes to respond to the 911 call and before they got there, the thugs had shot up the outside of the house. BTW he probably would’ve grabbed an AR-15, but it was locked in his gun safe.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 11:15pm
  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process
  
  Oh, piss off WangDang. Commie pos.
  
  Report this comment
- scarydave
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 11:58pm
  You go Girl.
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:47am
  LT_SCROUNGE, Brother, I hear what you are saying. We have a couple of gun safes and the well bolted to where we want them. But, they only contain what we do not consider as our home protection weapons. I usually have my SIG 226, my wife her Glock 17, and my son his Baretta and all loaded with the Federal Hydra-Shok Plus P Plus along with a couple of Mossberg 500s and a couple of AR15s easily at hand weapons are secreted around the house. Yeah, my son and I are looking forward to eventually getting our hands on a couple of .45s again, but our 9s are loaded with the same ammo that I carried when I was a civilian cop. If unfamiliar with the Hydra-Shok loads, you might want to read about GSG9′s Colonel Wegner’s actions in Africa. I had the opportunity to not only salute Colonel Wegner in Grafenwohr during the CAT81 tank shoot, and I also was able to shake his hand. Remember always Lufthansa Flight 181.
  
  Report this comment
- Farmhand
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 4:04am
  Your sense, right because it’s the NRA members who are causing all the gun crime right?! No wait… that’s not even close to being statistically true but whatever. You lay those broad brush judgements, brother!
  
  Report this comment
- Thomas
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 6:35am
  I keep waiting for them to ban crime. lol
  
  Report this comment
- Derek01
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 7:16am
  It’s not the gun, it’s an attitude problem of both criminals and politicians. Criminals love politicians, and vote democrat). They can kill and commit crimes and what do politicians do? They take away law abiding citizens rights and ability to protect themselves. Criminals laugh at the stupid politicians but are ever so grateful for their better criminal opportunities
  
  Report this comment
- CABERNETQHS
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 7:30am
  His repeated fall back response to the one case where a woman saved herself with a shot gun is lame. She used what was available. I’m sure she would have used a more efficient weapon if it had been available. Women should be in the forefront in the defense of the 2nd amendment. Guns give us at least a chance against an intruder.
  
  Report this comment
- Vol Fan
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 8:57am
  I think she missed a great opportunity here. I have a Remington 870 and it’s a perfect home defense weapon for me, but I’m a 240 lb. man. I’ve taken my 110 lb. fiance out shooting to familiarize herself with it and she hates it. It kicks like a mule. It’s a perfect fit for me and not at all right for her. I would have asked him why he feels that he qualified to be the final arbiter on which weapon is best for us lowly servants to use should a life or death situation arise…
  
  Then I would have made fun of his stammering on 100 magazine… peculiar… types of artifacts… I think I would have asked him if he even knew what the hell he was talking about.
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 9:56am
  Mr or Ms RJJZEIGHEIL,
  
  This is what you must know:
  
  Thank God you’re piss tube buddies with FUBARED. Whew! This is happening just in time. Re: your choice of firearms . . . wow, I can’t believe how close a call this is . . . Your Sig 226 and the wife’s Glock 17 . . . I think your boy carries a Beretta (how cheesily swank!) . . . anyway, FUBARED will tell you that those 9s are incapable of killing anyone. They can only injure someone. And those .45s you lust after? He’ll tell you the .45 ACP is the most powerful round ever devised. Yep, nothing bigger or badder than the 45. Gosh, I don’t know, all this gun stuff just makes m pretty little head spin. Good thing we have experts like FUBARED to lean on in tough times, eh? I guess he learned a lot rolling around the hold of that ship full of transvestites steaming from Dover to Calais.
  
  Go Gerber!
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:12am
  WangDang
  Everybody in and out of uniform knows that Marines regularly piss on the 2nd and fluff for commie 0. It is common knowledge, a given. Sure, uh huh. What drugs are you mixing and why did that seem smart? There is the .50 AE, 500 S&W, .480 Ruger, and various other sundry calibers larger than a .45 acp. A Marine would go with practical application and availability, shirley you would concur, as a valiant Marine. As a known and feared Marine of Fallujah 2, what options should we peruse and pursue to disarm ourselves and spread our cheeks for your beloved 0 and crew? What do you advise WangDang as the ferocious veteran you are revered to be? Enlighten us on the measure you would take to become a ward of the state.
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:38am
  Mr or Ms FUBARED,
  
  This is what you must know:
  
  Backtrackers always show up just a couple of days too late.
  
  I accept your surrender. I leave you and RJJ to lick your wounds, alone or together.
  
  it is so.
  
  Report this comment
SquidVetOhio
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:25pm
So, if a mother had used a roller pin than roller pins should be enough?

That should have been her response.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- muffythetuffy
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 5:04pm
  It may be better for decent people to put one’s life in harms way to secede from this despicable nation than to do it just to protect your family against a crazed home invader. Decent people’s lives are now in danger in America at the hands of their own government.
  
  Report this comment
- shorelineliz
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 8:37am
  Ask the mother down in Georgia with the 9 year old twins holed up in an attic with only 5 or 6 shots left in her .38 revolver who unloaded the entire chamber into the perps face which still did not do the job, cause he was laying there alive and talking to her, just ask THAT MOTHER what gun she would have preferred and get HER to testify before these idiots and morons and buffoons in Congress okay? would somebody get some kick ass people to go on up into these proceedings please? Or are we going to keep being subjected to melba toast? Ackkk!
  
  Report this comment
The Big Mick
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:23pm
EnciMom.
Stats show BOYfriends put Women in Danger.
Want to trot out the disproportionate numbers of NBA and NFL players slugging their Nordichick Hos?
Tiger Woods getting his Big Black Driver off choking Fair Haired Cocktail Waitresses?
And, oh gee, is it POSSIBLE that GUN violations are part of the GangstaHoodin Homie CULTURE TOO?
Guns put EVERYONE “in danger” EnciMom. It is WHAT THEY ARE FOR. It is what ALL WEAPONS are For.
The whole POINT is that BAD people are ALWAYS a danger HOWEVER armed, and GOOD people are a DEFENSE against danger and SHOULD be armed.
And of course the point that the Right to keep and bear arms is a God Endowed Unalienable Individual LIBERTY and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
What say we Outlaw GanstaHomie boyfriends?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
1Haole_Boy
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:23pm
WOMEN IN CHICAGO HAVE A BETTER CHANCE AT SURVIVAL SERVING IN A RIFLE COMPANY IN AFGHANISTAN THAN LIVING, UNARMED, IN CHICAGO
The HUFFINGTON POST wrote on January 16, 2013 that more gun deaths occurred in Chicago than troop deaths in Afghanistan from the beginning of the war to present.
Chicago has the most restrictive gun control policy in the United States and has the distinction of being the number one city in gun deaths in the United States as well.
PTSD among our troops serving in AFGHANISTAN is one in five troopers, I wonder what it is in Chicago!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Al Gator
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 7:46pm
  Hey, Haole!
  
  I lived on Guam, how many people on this board know what your handle implies?
  
  YeeeHaaa, time to go to Tumon Bay and get wet!
  
  Report this comment
- Al J Zira
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 9:05pm
  Al Gator: You were in Guam?!?! I thought it was tipping over?
  
  Report this comment
TADTAD
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:22pm
No, Marxists, you’re not going to win this one. The sooner you realise that, the sooner you save lives. Yours. That is all.

Always Faithful

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Depressed_American
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:20pm
SO WHAT!!! The young Oklahoma mother used a shot gun because that is what she had in her home when she was attacked. She could have very easily used an AR-15, Glock, Beretta, 45, etc… if those were the weapons she had in her home. The weapon of choice, used to protect her child, was probably the last thing on her mind. She used what she had….. As numerous new stories have reported in the last month alone; people used what weapon they could get to at the time of the attack!!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:39pm
  Which is why I have many…..strategically placed.
  
  Report this comment
The Big Mick
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:17pm
EnciMom.
Like “move on” was formed to slander “The Bimbos”. “Drag a $50 bill thru a trailer park”.
That was Little Joey Goebbles Bitchn Jimmy Carvel there.
If you believed “Repubelickum ****” Hill, did you believe “The Bimbos” and “better put some ice on that?” Why not?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Exidor
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:16pm
Yeah, the 12 gauge shotgun would be perfectly legal.

Wait until you can’t buy any shells for it. I guess you could swing it like a baseball bat.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
KevINtampa
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:15pm
Glad the shotgun worked for that gun owner.

Let’s say I have a shoulder that separates easily, the recoil on a shotgun is DANGEROUS in my hands as the first shot will be accurate but the second…it wouldn’t end well for me. I’d be in pain, incredibly uncoordinated, and panic stricken trying to get the next shell pumped.

The limited recoil of a .223 semi-auto though would work well in my case. For a Senator to assume that he knows what works for everyone is a jack ass mentality.

My point is, to each their own. What works for some one may not work for someone else and limiting that choice is:

#1. Unconstitutional
#2. unAmerican

Also, the shooter isn’t the one who decides the number of rounds needed for defense…

The assailant(s) decides how many rounds it takes.

In the case of riots 7 rounds will only piss off a crowd storming your house.
Just a couple weeks ago a woman fired 5 rounds at a man and he fled the house…what happens when instead of fleeing he keeps persisting in his aggression? You will wish you hand 15 rounds.

At the end of a firefight that saves my life I’d rather have 7 rounds LEFT in a magazine than an empty magazine and a chance to meet St. Peter because a Senator 2,500 miles away decided for me I didn’t need the weapon that would save my life.

I AM A MAN, SENATOR

I WILL NOT COMPLY

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
jamestoms
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:14pm
No, he’s a leach, a fat, smug pathetic brown nosier who deserves the worst a patriot can give. He’s a lair, cheat and thief like the rest of them.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The Big Mick
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:11pm
Ahh me. First thing I learned at Duke was “he who controls terms and definitions controls the argument.”
Don’t let ANYONE especially an elected REPRESENTATIVE get away with ANY statement that is NOT GERMANE.
Number of rounds—NOT Germane–ANY number–NOT Germane.
“Need” or “use”—NOT germane.
Way it functions–NOT germane.
“Problems” with “gun” violence–NOT germane.
Body counts, kids, students, anybody–NOT germane.

“The RIGHT of The PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall NOT be INFRINGED!”
ONLY germane thing.
Whatever else ANYbody regards as a “problem” they MUST find “solutions” elsewhere.
“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” means “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
nothin, nohow, noway.
Everything else is Heifer Methane, cause it ain’t got the Balls to be Bull or the Substance to be sheite.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- encinom
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:16pm
  You forget “WELL REGULATED”
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:21pm
  Exactly correct.
  
  There is no debate here. Every supposed question they ask, say “Not relevant. We will not disarm and we will not comply if you order us to. Go to hell.” Calmly, dispassionately and with a cold, clinical stare.
  
  Emotional railing may feel good, and be a bit cathartic, but the time for that is over. The details do not matter, “does not infringe” doesn’t dicker with the details, and neither should we.
  
  No compliance. No debate. No argument. No word games. We will not comply.
  
  Report this comment
- Sergetov
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:24pm
  Actually “well regulated” means to have the best/up to date weaponry/equipment. The intent of the 2nd, as repeated by all, is to ensure that citizens have the power to keep government in check. If citizens did not have the best/up to date weaponry, it would be nothing for tyranny to walk all over them. If that line wasn’t in there, there would be no reason to stop government from only allowing us to bear muskets.
  
  So by you continually spouting the “well regulated” line, you are actually providing more proof that banning assault weapons is not only infringing on our right to bear arms, but also unconstitutional when it comes to being “well regulated”.
  
  Thank you
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:27pm
  “You forget “WELL REGULATED””
  
  Is there currently gun laws? Yes, yes there is. It’s already “well regulated” genius.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:27pm
  You’ve been called on that enough times that it’s not going to be done again, worm.
  
  Your kind is afraid and getting more fearful by the day, and good for it. Do you know what the job of the “Green Beret” is, worm? It’s to train resistance and militia behind enemy line. We just had 1,000 sign up for our side, openly. Your days are numbered, and we are no longer going to debate your kind, worm.
  
  We will not comply. No arguments, no debate, no word games.
  
  You’re being neutered more and more as each day passes. Get used to it.
  
  Report this comment
- dblaess
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:29pm
  @encinom
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:16pm
  You forget “WELL REGULATED”
  ———————————————
  Dose Soros pay you by the post or by the word?
  
  Report this comment
- ichbin
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:31pm
  And they had no intention of the Government people the regulator. The people were the militia and they regulated themselves.
  
  Report this comment
- qpwillie
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:32pm
  @encinom
  Yes, since it is necessary for a “well regulated” FEDERAL militia, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall (ALSO) not be infringed.
  
  Learn how to read punctuation.
  
  Report this comment
- Melvin Spittle
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:34pm
  “You forget “WELL REGULATED””
  
  Well regulated meant good working order as in well trained citizens and properly maintained weapons. I could break out the crayons for you if you would like. I suspect you have been eating paste again.
  
  Report this comment
- SendTheMeteors
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:34pm
  Wrong Mick. “Shall not be infringed” actually does not mean “Shall not be infringed.” The Supreme Court has consistently upheld reasonable “infringements” of both the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
  
  Justice Scalia, as conservative as anyone in the Supreme Court wrote this about the 2nd Amendment in the ruling of District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008):
  
  “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
  
  When a very conservative member of the SCOTUS writes an opinion like that, I’d say, a) you’re entitled to an opinion but b) since you aren’t a judge, your opinion isn’t GERMANE.
  
  Report this comment
- turbo
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:38pm
  Exactly. It’s always liberals who talk over and bully their verbal opponent.
  Call these people out EVERY time they use this tactic, which is every time your are making a logical argument.
  They can’t stand the truth being used to debate them, it’s like sunshine to vampires!
  
  Report this comment
- Zipit
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:39pm
  Encinom! You are a moron! Once again moron, the Bill Of Rights is a list of things that the government cannot do! The first ten amendments otherwise known as “The BIll Of Rights” put limits on what the government can do! Thus, the government Is not in charge of and cannot regulate our, “the people’s” militia! The government cannot infringe on our right to keep and bear arms!!!!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:43pm
  You’re not being debated Meteors. There is no longer a debate. Your side is wrong, and we give you no more quarter.
  
  Take that back to whomever you wish and let them know that the games are over, and that the discussions are no longer continuing. You’re wrong, we will disobey anything you try to put in place to disarm us, and if you want to push the issue we’ll push back, hard.
  
  Good day.
  
  Report this comment
- Sergetov
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:48pm
  Wrong Send The Meteors. No where did Justice Scalia say that citizen cannot bear arms, or even what type of arms they can bear.
  
  Reading comprehension would dictate that Justice Scalia believes that there is a right way to exercise your 2nd amendment right, with responsibility, and to follow state laws when it comes to the legality of mentally unstable people/felons owning weapons.
  
  Report this comment
- SendTheMeteors
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:50pm
  GhostOfJefferson says, “We will not disarm.”
  
  Uh, Ghost, I really was hoping you were keeping up with the news. See, none of the proposed legislation has anything to do with “disarming” anyone. Your bold statements sound seriously tough though; or at least they would if they were addressing something in the real world rather than in your paranoid fantasy of resisting to the end the governments efforts to “disarm” you.
  
  But nobody has suggested disarming anyone. Nobody is trying to “take your guns away.” Take a moment please and try to catch up with the news in the real world. There is a real world out there you know.
  
  Report this comment
- WTFurnuts
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:57pm
  encinom
  
  Idiot.
  Well regulated means well trained, not well restrained.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 5:08pm
  @ Meteors, “But nobody has suggested disarming anyone.”
  I call BS… members of the Iowa State legislature, members of the Illinois State Legislature and the Gov of NY all have advocated CONFISCATION of firearms. These are pundits, these are commentors on some Daily Kos board, these aren’t wacked out communist columnists to the NY Times. They’re politicians talking about coming and taking weapons from citizens.
  
  Report this comment
- Zipit
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 5:20pm
  Meteors! “But nobody has suggested disarming anyone. Nobody is trying to “take your guns away.” Take a moment please and try to catch up with the news in the real world. There is a real world out there you know.” REALLY?
  
  Just how many articles, clips, sound bites, threats of confiscation and open calls to “get the guns”, do we, the kindly people here at The Blaze need to list for you? People on the left in this country, mostly politicians are doing just that everyday! Where have you been! I’m sure someone here is trying to see things from your point of view. However, there is no room left in your recital cavity, due to your fat head being firmly ensconced in such!
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 6:15pm
  SendTheMeteors
  
  GhostOfJefferson says, “We will not disarm.”
  ***
  Senator Diane Feinstein means to disarm Americans. She has said so in the past. She means to now.
  
  That she doesn’t say so does not mean that is not her intent. She has gotten a little but better at crafting bills & is willing to take it in steps.
  
  So there is no trust of the Senator, you or anyone else on the left.
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 6:21pm
  Gunning down a classroom full of first graders changed everything.
  Pandora’s box can’t be closed.
  You are going to have to deal with it.
  
  And the NRA spokepeople are freakin cartoon characters,
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 6:44pm
  I’ll explain it in small words for you Meteors.
  
  If you ban 30 round magazines, we’ll make them in our metal shops and sell them to our friends and neighbors. If you ban certain firearms from production, we’ll make the spare parts ourselves and share amongst ourselves. If you ban certain ammunition, we can reload all on our own. If you require a background check so that we can sell to our own family, we will ignore your requirements. In fact, anything you do which infringes on our right to bear arms will be met with outright defiance of the law(s) in question.
  
  Any questions? Good. You’re dismissed.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 6:55pm
  @Zipit, Walkabout, Cavallo
  
  Precisely correct. This is why the progressives no longer deserve to be spoken to about this. They twist, insinuate, lie and otherwise try to make up meaning out of whole cloth, hoping against all reason that we continue to engage them until we’re a befuddled mess. You cannot unravel chaos, which is what they try to weave into conversations, and the moment you pin them to something the slip away into something else. There is no point in debating them or entertaining their sneers and snark and lies. From henceforth, we disengage, say no, defy them, and dare them to do something about it. They’re cowards at a base level, and they know they can’t win this if we dig in and stop playing their petty, effeminate little passive aggressive rhetorical games with them. So, we dig in and stop. That easy.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 8:42pm
  Addendum: Watch how they flail and grimace and grit their teeth and mock. I assure you all, the less we engage these people, the better. They can twist a lot of things, but they cannot handle open rebellious defiance worth a lick and their toolkit quickly finds itself used up.
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 8:50pm
  Mr or Ma GHOASTOFJEFFERSON,
  
  This is what you must know:
  
  Thanks for reading. I’m, well, I’m honored. You got the mock part right. The rest? Nothing more than false bravado born of emotional desperation.
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
- SendTheMeteors
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 9:08pm
  Hello! Earth to posters! Can we come back to the real world for a second and look at the proposed legislation? Not something that someone, somewhere said, but the real world legislation that that is on the table? There is nothing there about “disarming” or “taking your guns away.” Or preventing you from giving or selling a firearm to a family member, something specifically addressed in the bill. If we can’t get that far rational discussion is impossible.
  
  The first step for you guys is trying to understand exactly what the legislation is, without wandering off into TimothyM-like fantasies of the government “disarming” you.
  
  I posted a relevant quote from one of the two most conservative justices on the Supreme Court which said, yes, some (as yet defined, awaiting a court case) restrictions on gun ownership and gun sales is Constitutional. One was Scalia, who interprets the Constitution strictly according to his belief of what the Founders meant at the time. Maybe you guys believe you have greater wisdom that Scalia and other members of the SCOTUS about the Constitution?
  
  If you can’t remove yourself from your Rambo-under-siege fantasies long enough to rationally discuss the issue then you shouldn’t be part of the conversation. There is a real world, something which you ought to look at while you’re piling canned foods in your basement.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 9:15pm
  MeatEeyors
  No mas. Debate WangDang over your favorite psychotropics.
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 10:00pm
  Mr or Ms GHOSTOFJEFFERSON,
  
  This is what you must know:
  
  Ah, not only reading but also reporting my posts. How very libertarian. First sign of a fight and what do you do? Run off the playground and whimper to Mrs McGillicutty.
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:55am
  Ms WANG-DANG-DOODLE, LOL you mean that you have not caught on that nobody reports you, but it is your own banter that catches the attention of the site moderators? Haven’t yet figured out yet that your computer serial number shows up for them to keep an eye on your posts? Damn, you gotta be dumber than dog sh/t!
  
  Report this comment
- Farmhand
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 4:57am
  ESendtheMeteors, it is a long term disarm. Even accepting your premise that this bill will be the last we ever hear about gun control (which it never is), the bill essentially makes it impossible to get firearms and magazines of a certain type that many of us enjoy. Guns, like any machine, will eventually break down and without being able to buy a replacement the effect is essentially disarming us. If you put a ban on buying automobiles for instance, you can technically claim that you’re not taking away anyone’s vehicle directly, but in the few decades there aren’t going to be a lot of cars on the road, now are there?
  
  As for Scalia I would argue that he is wrong under the law and intent of the second amendment, but is doing so because he feels it is for the betterment of society. It indeed may be better if citizens don’t have access to high explosives, but then that should have been sought through the amendment process. The problem is if arms can be limited, at what point is it enough? It becomes a slippery slope where it may start off as limits on artillery, then on machine guns and explosives, then semi automatic rifles. How do we know in the near future it won’t be deemed unreasonable for citizens to have hand guns, rifles over a certain cartridge size and shotguns? It is because indeed the courts have decided that the Second amendment can be infringed apon that us right wingers go so nuts whenever you lefties try to push a little further.
  
  Report this comment
00100111
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:10pm
Sheldon Whitehouse is an absolute ******. But then, look at the D next to his name, it is a given that he is a bit deficient in the intellectual arena.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
GoodStuff
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:08pm
“It proves the point that with ordinary firearms, not 100-magazine, peculiar types of artifacts ”

What the hell is he talking about? Peculiar types of artifacts??

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Derfel Cadarn
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:06pm
Senator let me say this one more time, the Second Amendment was not written for hunting and self defense, at that time these pursuits were a given in society. It was specifically written so that the People could defend themselves from a onerous government. Having just completed a horrible against a tyrannical government these thoughts were fresh in the Founders minds. The situation is no less different now. As “our” government continually encroaches upon the Peoples FREEDOM and LIBERTY in is more required now than nearly ever before.
We fully understand Senator the government on “gun safety”, a man or woman with a gun is a citizen and a man or woman without one is a subject. We sir arte citizens and fully intend to stay that way. For it is when the American {People are disarmed that the real killing will begin. It happens the same way every time. Look it up Senator. Whatever firearms are good enough for our police forces,which we the people fund, are equally good for WE the PEOPLE.
Understand this Senator WE the PEOPLE will accept no less. As for the arms we now possess Come and take them !

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Apexduck
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:21pm
  The 2nd amendment is not to allow me to hunt, it is to protect me from those who occupy the any and all elected post from abusing power and enslaving “we the people”. PERIOD
  
  Report this comment
- Godfather.1
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 5:48pm
  How right you both are! If not for you and your arsenal of semi-automatic guns, the government would come in and enslave you. Obviously, the only reason a swat team doesn’t come to force you to gay marry your neighbor is because you sit with your semi-automatic rifle on your front porch keeping the government in check. Drone attacks and stinger missiles are useless against your six shooter.
  
  Thank you both so much for making sure that the government can’t use industrialized, mechanized weapons to kill people with the push of a button. Thank you for making sure that government hasn’t come in and forced us all to get gay married and live in a Marxist utopia run by George Soros.
  
  Report this comment
- Farmhand
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 5:04am
  Godfather, a few thousand Afganies with fifty year old AKs are still giving the modern militaries of the US and coalition forces trouble almost a decade after hostilities began. Advanced military tech is awesome but expensive and only goes so far. I mean I don’t entertain the idea of civil war myself but that you scoff at it shows a massive lack of understanding of how civil/insurgency wars play out.
  
  Report this comment
TSUNAMI_22
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:05pm
The people of common sense in this country have had enough tyrannical BS from politicians. Unfortunately, it took Sandy Hook and Cuomo / Feinstein to finally snap people out of the Snooki / Kardashian / Housewives coma of denial and apathy.

We will not be disarmed and we will not comply with a gun ban of any kind.

Liberal can either start sweating or get with the freakin’ program.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Verceofreason
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 6:22pm
  But no one wants to disarm you
  so what’s your point?
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 8:19pm
  Versace of Treason
  You have zip to offer. Shall not be infringed. Shall not be infringed on by: wankers, idiots, buffoons, libs, progs, commies, socialists, or crime enablers. Nobody. Cry more, cry often. Just cry alone.
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:45am
  Mr or Ms FUBARED,
  
  this is what you must know:
  
  How about Italian transvestites? Can they infringe upon the 2nd Amendment? Male porn stars?
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:01am
  Seems redundant as you spew forth. Why did you drop WangDang? Why would a “Marine” not back and stand for the 2nd WangDang? It is completely nonsensical. So many questions, but alas, you have become boring, pedestrian, and predictable even. It was cute at first, as you want to be cute, but you have nothing to offer. Zip, zilch, nada. A Marine pooping on the 2nd and fluffing commie 0 are just too far fetched. Large lesbian perhaps? Hairy bear maybe? It’s cool, whatever floats for you to maintain. But exactly how close are you to the precipice? Your ramblings have a dire appearance. You aren’t near scissors are you? Eh, piss off WangDang, sprint with those scissors.
  
  Report this comment
00100111
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:03pm
Blaze. Come on. You’re beginning to be like MSNBC and Newsweek. Why do you intentionally post unflattering photos of the people you’re reporting about? Are all of you 12 yrs old?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ginger100
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:02pm
Do you think they are listening to everyone or just themselves? VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Big Mick
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:14pm
  What makes you think you CAN, GR?
  Couldn’t vote Tyrant Prime out, could we?
  Since Teddy R and Wilson when have the Progressives been outvoted enought to REVERSE the erosion of our Sacred Liberties?
  What’s Left of Reagan Revolution or the Contract with America?
  From here on out VOTING ain’t going to do a d amn thing to secure your Sacred Liberties.
  Got a back up plan?
  
  Report this comment
- jakartaman
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:27pm
  Obama has increased the democratic plantation.
  A good slave owner knows how to get the most out of his help.
  
  Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:02pm
The lady has it wrong the second amendment wasn’t written for personal defense,it was written to keep the government from becoming a tyrannical dictatorship.

Whitehouse was unmoved and reiterated the fact that the woman who defended her home used a 12-gauge shotgun. which would be “perfectly allowed.” Oh thank you your lordship for allowing us to own the weapon of your choice. This is the kind of arrogance that’s currently ruling us and if WE ALLOW these politicians to infringe on our right to bear arms they will with glee. Congress,the president nobody can write a law telling us what kind of firearm we can own. Yes I know there’s thousands of laws and regulations regarding the sale of firearms and every one of them are unconstitutional.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LakeHartwellSailor
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:36pm
  You sir, are most correct. However, I do not discount this lady’s concern. Sure, the 2nd Amendment is there to allow the citizenry to defend themselves from a tyrannical government; but aside from that, self-defense against criminals is a bona-fide right to bear arms as well. I know I feel better when I am on the road that my wife is armed.
  
  I also believe that the government has NO right to tell me what kind of weapon(s) I can own, and I have many….as each weapon has its strong points and weak points given the situation. I have several Personal Defense Weapons (as I will use the DHS’s definition to describe several of my semi-automatic rifles which happen to have collapsible stocks, foregrips, and flash suppressors). Some are appropriate for close quarter combat, some are better for longer range scenarios…..shotgun for “crowd control”…..you get the picture. There is no “one-size fits all” solution. Each is a tool that is appropriate for the given situation; kind of like you wouldn’t use a pair of pliars when a pipe wrench is required.
  
  Report this comment
Bobert
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:01pm
How many rounds to do you need? One more than is necessary to stop the threat. How many is that? I don’t know, but I don’t want to be on the wrong end of that number if/when the time comes – and no congress person should be allowed to artificially restrict that round number because they THINK they know the answer.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 00100111
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:12pm
  And it ain’t about need. It’s “how many do I want?” I don’t have to justify a need.
  
  Report this comment
1HonestInjun
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:01pm
And of course the senators have exempt themselves from the guns and magazines they are trying to band that women from owning to defend herself. Such hyprocrites!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- CatB
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:04pm
  Yes .. like Social Security, ObamaTAX, etc etc etc …
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:07pm
  The Hyprocrite is Independent Women’s Forum and Gayle Trotter. Her and her organization lobbies to block legislation like the Violence Aganist Women Act and strengthening laws regarding sexaul assaults, which only makes sense, since the organization was formed to slander Anita Hill.
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:14pm
  Enci, I will not translate what you wrote for fellow Blazers:
  
  “WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH! WAAAHH WAAAHH WAAAAHH WAAAHHH WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH WWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH”!
  
  Report this comment
- dblaess
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:19pm
  @encinom
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:07pm
  The Hyprocrite is Independent Women’s Forum and Gayle Trotter.
  ——————————————————————–
  Do you get paid by Soros per post or per word?
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:34pm
  It’s understandable that ENCINOM is worried about violence against women being the petulant little girl that he is.
  
  Report this comment
encinom
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:00pm
The fact of the matter is that more guns put women in danger. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center has found that states with more guns have more female violent deaths. Their research also found that batterers who owned guns liked to use them to scare and control their victims, and would often use the gun to threaten the victim, threaten her pets or loved ones, clean them menacingly during arguments, or even fire them to scare her. The Violence Policy Center’s research showed that in 1998, the year they studied, 83 women were killed by an intimate partner for every woman who used a gun in self-defense. Futures Without Violence compiled the statistics and found that guns generally make domestic violence worse, both by increasing the likelihood of murder and also by creating situations where abuse is more violent, controlling, and traumatic.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/01/30/gayle_trotter_s_fantasies_of_fighting_off_violent_men_don_t_have_anything.html

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:06pm
  Harvard LMFAO!!!
  
  Report this comment
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:07pm
  You can cite 10,000 anti gun studies but the fact remains,’SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED’ is the law of the land,the lawbreakers can’t even write a law regarding gun sales and ownership because they don’t have the authority,the constitution is clear on this.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:09pm
  Slate? Come on Encidiot. It helps to protect you, of all people. When your man comes home drunk demanding you to perform, you can so no. Why did you drop the whole tiny caskets meme? Shall not be infringed. Get that as a tattoo to save you time.
  
  Report this comment
- Libertyluvnmomma
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:10pm
  “Futures Without Violence compiled the statistics”
  I bet with a name like that the statistics must be accurate!
  I have always said,”let’s round up all the criminals and put them somewhere”
  you do that, then we talk.
  
  Report this comment
- biohazard23
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:11pm
  Wow, Slate? That’s the best you can do? How very, very sad – LOL!!!! Hey, it’s not unexpected coming from the likes of YOU, but it’s still funny nonetheless. Heh heh heh….
  
  Report this comment
- dblaess
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:14pm
  You are correct. I only point to Chicago to show how guns in the hands of legal gun owners are bad. chicago has the most strict gun control laws in the country so therefore only legal gun owners have guns, but they are shoting each other every weekend. The government must go into Chicago to the locations of registered gun owners and take their guns so Chicago will be safe. Now that I have said the stupid words that you would say, the government only wants those guns held by honest citizens so the Democrat voter base(Chicago residents who are holding illegal guns) can continue their “work” with little hazzard to themselves.
  
  Report this comment
- 13th Imam
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:14pm
  Shelly has armed protection. Paid for by Actual Taxpayers. That 17 year old Bammy supporter from Chicago ,who was hangin with her banger buds should have chosen her friends more wisely. And I’m sure they will be able to trace the gun back to the thug that registered it. Right jerky?
  
  Report this comment
- Libertyluvnmomma
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:15pm
  encimon you don’t have to have a gun.
  I fact, it would be better for all of us if you didn’t. Based on the last years worth of your comments here at The Blaze, I am not convinced that you are on the same plane of reality.
  You could go off at any moment. Your dedication to a site you rarely agree with is kooky
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:15pm
  Slate.com? Really? Dude. Fail. Uber fail.
  
  Report this comment
- Charles the Hammer
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:22pm
  @Encinom Your post is brilliant! Since women are too incompetent to use firearms in their own defense, they should be banned from owning them. Right! You probably oppose permitting women in frontline combat roles as well…Keep them in the kitchen. Since you repeat the absurd and untrue argument that citizens are more likely to be injured with the weaons they use for personal defense, we shouldn’t worry about regulating any firearms or registering owners. According to your pretzel logic, criminals with such dangerous weapons will likely shoot themselves. Problem solved! GENIUS!
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:23pm
  So liberals who beat their wives shouldn’t own guns. What’s your point? I can cite the states that have more alcohol have more women dye in drunk driving accidents. So, let’s ban anything with an alcohol content over 4%. I mean who really needs 15%?
  
  Report this comment
- Melvin Spittle
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:29pm
  Let me sink your ship with a logic torpedo:
  
  1. Could it be that the emphasis should be on empowering women to defend themselves with firearms?
  2. How will gun control address the evil in ones heart that will murder with a club, knife, their fists, etc, even in the absence of a firearm? If your argument were sound, I could effectively address obesity by banning forks and spoons or limit the size of each.
  
  Report this comment
- 50211bs
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:39pm
  Harvard injury controled research center, like their #’s arent skewed in favor of gun control !
  
  Report this comment
- CloudNine
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:58pm
  Typical Encinom BS. Harvard, Slate…you kidding me? We already know their political slant. Save us all some time and quit posting on The Blaze until such time as you can bring a legitimate argument with facts that don’t favor your political viewpoint.
  
  Report this comment
- nesmond
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 5:19pm
  I see you are all for saving lives. On that note, what is your position on the 56,000,000 children slaughtered since Roe v. Wade? I’m sure you must be against that also, since you seem so concerned about saving lives. lol.
  
  Report this comment
- Farmhand
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 4:18am
  Our trolls are out in force on this one. Something must have struck a nerve.
  
  Report this comment
Fubared
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 3:57pm
?With no additional point to make, the senator said his “point” ‘ was pointless and cowered from the well spoken housewife that neutered him in front of the country.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Red Meat
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:00pm
  Beck calls for a third party. Will not give one dime to a Republican.
  We should all support this.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:11pm
  I am up for it. Few conservative “R’s” any where. If they cave, they need to find another job. Seems support for a 3rd party now is becoming common sense. Now the bots will chime in…
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 4:17pm
  Beck supports being a coward as well. Just ask to be arrested and “have your day in court”, then you’ll be shipped off to an undisclosed location and executed without due process. No thanks, Beck.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 7:59pm
  001
  You are not alone in that thought. Not I nor any I know of as close and personal. No thanks, and like OldGuy says: pass the ammo, amen.
  
  Report this comment
Gargent_Furball
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 3:55pm
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Cavallo
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 3:55pm
We need those 100 round weapons to defend ourselves from the Senator. THAT is what the 2nd amendment is for. To shoot fascist tyrants and their sycophantic thug agents. The home defense and hunting excuses these statist autocrats attempt to draw people into are a red herring. They don’t want to take all our guns.. just a few .. here and there.. then later on.. a few more.. you don’t NEED X.. then soon you don’t need ANY.. we have state police enforcers to “defend” you. The leftists are first and foremost tyrants. They desire you to be on your knees and completely reliant and subservient to the whims of the fascist state. Would you have resisted the fascists of Germany as they came to power in 1930s? Now’s your chance right here at home.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Pontiaku
  Posted on January 30, 2013 at 7:45pm
  5 out of 6 shots weren’t enough to kill one man what makes them think 10 is enough against multiple intruders or assailants?
  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/05/my-wife-is-a-hero-georgia-mother-shoots-home-intruder-five-times-after-being-cornered/
  
  Just imagine playing a video game with only 10 rounds, no respawn, and no restrictions on the bad guys. Except this isn’t a video game, it’s life… It is ridiculous to put limits on defending our lives! Civilized people don’t go around murdering each other so why are civilized people treated as uncivilized monsters that can’t be trusted with 100 rounds of ammunition?
  
  Report this comment
civilwarcometh
Posted on January 30, 2013 at 3:53pm
This is their mind set EVIL is EVIL….http://weaselzippers.us/2013/01/30/crazed-libtalker-john-mccain-deserved-to-be-tortured-by-north-vietnamese-for-bombing-civilians/

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.