@CSGV Defends Spousal Abuse

In response to me quoting the statement by the CSGV on FB that ANY violent use of a weapon is wrong and noting that includes defense of yourself or family as they acted apologist for a serial spousal abuser ,

Got that?  The VICTIM was in the wrong because she had a duty to retreat in her OWN HOME against a husband who was beating her according to Ladd Everitt. Seriously, they've got the gall to attack Nugent but defends a guy who says this:

“I got five baby mamas and I put my hand on every last one of them except one. The way I was with women, they was like they had to walk on eggshells around me. You know, they never knew what I was thinking … or what I might do … hit them, push them.”

They responded w/ this:

 So my reply:

Then the backpedaling begins:

So the woman was at fault for shooting at her serially abusive husband.  That's the equivalent of saying a woman raped was 'asking for it' by dressing provacatively.   The comment though is certainly a change from 'Any Context' so I asked them if they refuted that statement made under their official name.

That was mixed in w/ regular uses of my name in an effort to intimidate me and the usual ad hominems and character attacks to try and change the subject.  And as '45Superman' got a laugh out of, accusing me of taking their words 'Any Context',  out of context.

 Not sure what other meaning you can get out of 'Using armed violence in any context is flat out wrong..." there can be. Now had they added 'in response to.." That would have changed the entire meaning, but they didn't.  One of those Freudian things.

Then they stopped talking to me.  It's funny watching them dance when their real motives are revealed. The sad thing is they ARE paid to do this and you can see why they've been so successful at it. It also clearly shows the trend to revert back to trolling when they are out of their echo chambers. These people need some serious help.

Update:  The nearly crapped themselves responding when I posted this and tried to claim I want to arm spousal abusers in an attempt to divert the fact they clearly stated that the VICTIM had a duty to retreat, in her own home,  against her unarmed husband who was beating her. This was an interesting post:

 So after years of anti-gun advocates telling us to rely on restraining/protective orders and the police, Ladd Everitt of the CSGV admits they're ineffectual against domestic violence. His only suggestion for 'strong gun laws' is to continue to remove due process while scum like the husband above are put on probation by the 'Justice' system as he focuses on the instrument and not the abuser or victim.