Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Thank You Ladd Everitt @CSGV

CSGV Tweet.
@TrailerDays @peaceloveammo @jpr9954 Read your blog sometime. It's disgusting and insulting to those who have lost loved ones to guns.
Thank you. If the CSGV mouthpiece thinks that, I'm doing a good job.

The rest was just bringing up the fact that most 'gun control' laws are based on racism so they responded w/ the claim I can't care about anyone else because I'm 'white' and the usual 'insurrectionist', etc. nonsense.

Unorganized Militia Gear

Unorganized Militia Gear

Follow TrailerDays on Twitter


Linoge said...

What gives Ladd Everitt the right to claim to speak for "those who have lost loved ones to guns"?

I know more than a few such people who would politely, and not so politely, tell him and his pathetic organization to sit on it and spin...

Anonymous said...

My wife's cousin killed his father with one of the family's guns and then shot it out with police and was killed himself. We had a double funeral and we were most assuredly "touched by gun violence."

But we still have guns and are a pro-gun family. Why? Because the misuse of a tool by a mentally ill individual is not a reason to blame the tool.

They don't speak for all of us.

Kurt "45superman" Hofmann said...

Am I to understand that someone pays him a salary to yelp his irrational rage at gun bloggers?

Thirdpower said...

He has the right to say whatever he wants, no matter how inane it makes him look. He, however, believes that anyone who criticizes the gov't should be imprisoned as 'traitors'.

Yeah. He gets paid for that. What a gig.

Kurt "45superman" Hofmann said...

Yeah. He gets paid for that. What a gig.

Kinda reminds me of Sugarmann's Huff 'n' Puff Post rant about his neighbor.

I remember wondering if the Joyce Foundation check-writers thought they were getting their anti-gun money's worth on that one (and many others, for that matter).

Linoge said...

Oh, fine: by what right can Ladd expect us to believe that idiotic drivel? You know what I meant :P.

John Richardson said...

I am in honored company. It seems that he has been including me along with you as one of the "disgusting and insulting" ones.

BTW my Aunt Belle was murdered as she sat eating her lunch at a lunch counter. It was before I was born but I do think this would qualify as being touched by violence. My Dad's hair turned white within a year of that and I never knew him without white hair. He was about 30 at the time.

kaveman said...

I was kinda wondering how much lower they could sink past yelling at individual businesses like Starbucks.

Now we know they've sunk to yelling at individual customers of businesses like Starbucks.


They might just show up and yell at our dogs.

alcade said...

Of course they should yell at our dogs... to not do so would be an insult to everyone who has ever been touched by dog violence.

We aren't calling for a dog ban here - just limits on dogs that have more than ten teeth, or that look deceptively cute.

ExurbanKevin said...

As much as I think their argument is silly (and I do, it's like banning printing presses because of Mien Kampf), the fact is, there's many, many people out there with legitimate suffering and grief because of the actions of violent criminals, and we in the firearms community risk coming off as callous or uncaring if we deny such pain exists.

I grieve for those who have lost a loved one to violent crime. No mother's son or daughter should die that way, ever.

But my rage is aimed at those who would commit such acts and not at the tools they choose to use to express their violence.

I rage against drunk drivers, I do not rage against cars. I rage against sexual predators, I do not rage against Facebook. And my sense of justice is for those who commit murder, not the weapons they choose to use.

Weer'd Beard said...

What I think is the really sad about this is when Anti-Freedom Cultists encourage grieving people to think that the gun is the only relevant factor for a death.

Did Jim Brady never think about why he was always surrounded by large strong men carrying Uzis under their coats, and was ferried around in an armored limo?

Did Bryan Miller never think why his brother carried a gun and wore body armor while doing his job in a city where guns were essentially banned?

Does Joan Peterson never think back to when her Brother-in-law was making the news for crazy actions, when her sister talked about him constantly losing his temper, when he did strange things at family gatherings...and then said nothing when her sister decided it might be a good idea to bring her boyfriend to his house to serve him papers?

Does Collin Goddard not think back to when he was laying on the floor talking on 911 about how wonderful that "Gun Free" campus was, or how little comfort a voice on the other end of a cellphone is when shots are ringing out and your only option is to hide like a rabbit?

And these are some of the big-name stories. There are several other anti-gunners who of course aren't very telling about details because the only detail relevant is the gun.

meanwhile we're supposed to give up our freedoms because of these people's sob stories?

Losing a loved one sucks, you have my sympathy, but as Mr. Robert Zimmerman once said: "it ain’t me, babe. It ain’t me you’re lookin’ for, babe."

Guffaw in AZ said...

Based on this 'logic', a car killed my daughter. But, I continue to have a driver's license, own a car, and drive. Guess I'm disgusting and insulting to myself!

Weer'd Beard said...

You just have Shame Guffaw.

Also I'm sorry for your loss.

A swimming pool took a young cousin of mine.

Of course there are no lobbies looking for shameless people looking to blame objects for human errors.