Liberals Must Lie to Further Their Gun Grabbing Agenda

By 36 Comments 1,395 views

I keep very close tabs on news relating to gun control, concealed carry, the 2nd Amendment and gun rights. As a gun owner and constitutionalist, I'm concerned that groups like the Brady Campaign use false or incomplete facts to further their efforts to suppress our rights to self-defense.

Reading Daniel Gross' piece, you'd almost want to agree with him. After all, who wants to empower maniacs to kill five unarmed, innocent people. The Gabriel Giffords shooting also spurred gun grabbers into action.

In all fairness, authorities should have been authorized to pull Mr. Stawicki's permit if there was a legitimate fear and a history of violence and mental health issues. Then again, where do we draw the line? All anyone that doesn't like guns would have to do would be to just claim that their neighbors are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to carry guns or that they feel unsafe.

On the other side of the argument, one could argue that had those five victims of Stawicki been armed, the situation could have turned out much different. This is, many say, the exact reason why guns should be more accessible, not less.

With that argument neutralized, there's this paragraph in the Huffington Post article:

In the NRA's view of the world, flooding our communities with guns “deters would-be murderers.” Never mind that Stawicki and so many deranged killers before him could kill so many people so quickly because the gun lobby made it so easy for them to venture out armed and ready to kill. Never mind that study after study has linked public gun carrying to increased rates of violent crime like robbery and murder.

Whoa! Sounds like a no-brainer to me. I mean, who wants more people dead? Who wants higher rates of murder and robbery? I don't think either gun grabbers or gun rights advocates want that. Maybe the Huffington Post is on to something here and the Stawicki story is just one of many anecdotes that leads to a logical conclusion. Or not…

You see, I believe in actual facts and evidence. It just so happens that the FBI has just released its annual Uniform Crime Report designed to “to meet a need for reliable, uniform crime statistics for the nation.” I'm sure that the Huffington Post cited this report to support its claims of increased crime. If that is true, Daniel Gross more than likely failed reading comprehension in middle school. Or maybe he's just taking a page from the Brady Campaign book and omitting evidence that contradicts their efforts.

According to the FBI's 2011 preliminary findings, violent crime was actually DOWN last year. As a matter of fact, crime is down across the country by 4% as a whole compared with the previous year. The report states that “the violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault” (emphasis added). Oops.

Let's focus just on the two crimes specified in Gross' screed – murder and robbery. Violent crime rates in metropolitan areas dropped 4.1 and 7.5 percent for murder and robbery respectively (non-metropolitan areas 1.1 and 3.6 percent respectively).

How can that possibly be? In January, the Huffington Post's own Josh Horwitz wrote that 2011 brought the largest jump in gun ownership (1.3 million more) since 1999. In other words, there was a 13% increase in the number of guns in American hands but violent crime FELL by 4%!! If you live in a city, you're safer than the national average as a result of the guns that you carry or possess, not more likely to be killed or robbed.

It's an inconvenient truth; but a truth that liberals can't deny.

To my fellow Americans, I urge you to help lower the crime rate even more. Go out and buy more guns as soon as possible. Arm yourselves. Get your carry license to carry either openly or concealed. Only YOU can stop violent crime! When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!


36 Responses to “Liberals Must Lie to Further Their Gun Grabbing Agenda”

  1. 1

    Robbins Mitchell

    I don’t mind some liberal grabbing my “gun”,,,,as long as he is willing to suck it to completion

  2. 2

    Nan G

    Between Jan. 1 and late May there were 203 homicides in a gun control city; Chicago, an increase of more than 50 percent over the 134 during the same period in 2011.

    It is not unusual to hear of 8 dead there per weekend, from gun play.

    OTOH, where guns are freely legal to carry we seldom hear about such wanton murder.

    Related to this:
    Gun Grabbers Have No Proof Washington DC’s Gun Ban Laws Have Worked

  3. 3


    If Afghanistan is a lost cause and Mexico a failed state, what the hell is Chicago?

    Living in Chicago is more deadly than being a soldier in Afghanistan – not just US soldier but NATO.

    According to FBI and Department of Defense data, 5,056 people have been murdered in Chicago since 2001, compared with 1,976 total U.S. deaths in Afghanistan since 2001. Chicago’s murder rate even outpaces total NATO coalition fatalities in Afghanistan since 2001 by a difference of more than 2,500 killed. -N.Peterson

  4. 4


    All these people who hate guns think that if they take the guns away from law abiding citizens, there will be fewer crimes commited by those with guns. Duh? Then the only people who will have guns to kill with will be the criminals who got their guns on the black market; or from Eric Holder. But you see, they don’t like guns (because guns tend to go off on their own and kill people, right?) so they don’t want you to legally own one.

    But by the same token, these same left wing nuts will tell you if you don’t agree with abortion, then don’t have one. Here’s a thought: if you don’t like guns, and you are afraid of them, don’t own one. But as for me, I am going to try to keep Colt, Browning and Henry in business.

  5. 5

    Dave Brickner

    I remember someone from Canada stating that we (the US) has so much crime because we have so many guns. I told him that maybe we will send him some of our deadbeats and see what happens to their statistics. People like this want someone else’s son or daughter to enforce their idea of gun control. I told him he should be willing to come personally to take my guns………..but maybe he should be real careful thelast 300 yards….

  6. 6

    Hard Right

    Actually, no credible study has proven a correlation between public gun carrying to increased rates of violent crime. In fact, the crime statistics don’t support it either. Oops.
    When such anti-Constitutional individuals like Mr. Gross cite studies, they cannot stand up to scrutiny. They fall apart like a leper in a wind tunnel.
    One they still like to claim as proof is that if you have a gun in the home you are 4x more likely to be to murdered. Those of us paying attention found out that the stats were adjusted to get the desired result. Just one example of the academic fraud on display was that any successful use of a gun by a firearm owner was tossed out. The study also did not mention whether those murdered were involved in illegal activity. Comically, the claims of risk were revised over and over. IIRC it started off 64x more likely to be shot to death. It went down to 32x, then 16x, and finally 4x. Why? Because basic math proved the study was a sham. Anyone with a brain could see that such numbers would have made America look like the O.K. Coral on a daily basis.
    The hatred of firearms has nothing to do with rational thought. That is why trying to reason with such people is a waste of time.

  7. 8

    Mr. Irons

    This reminds me of the violent video games equal violent crimes argument by the likes of Al Gore, Tipper Gore and Hiliary Clinton…

    Liberals, they claim they’re tollerant and for everyone’s freedoms but so far all they’ve done is:

    Attempting Nation wide bans to law Biding citizens their means to defend themselves from those who ignore the law.

    Tried to censor or forcefuly remove various Music and Entertainment off of the marketplace, surpressing freedom of speech.

    Tried to surpress the freedom of speech of political rivals in the market place and in public by claiming it all as hate speech with little to no backing of proof of such, “hate” existing.

    Attempting to force Eugenics and dietary controls over people, this is not liberty. This is facist in the purest form. Any person who calls themselves Liberal who supports control over other people’s diets are fooling themselves thinking they support liberty when they’re attempting to strip another’s liberty of choices away and imposing harsh penalties and controls.

  8. 9

    Keyser Söze

    “Money can’t buy happiness…but it can buy free time to pursue other endeavors.”

    (author unknown)

    From the above statement, we can see the violence in America can be linked back directly to Liberals. For it is they who have created and support the Welfare state. If not for Welfare, the dregs and slugs of society would not have the free time to pursue larcenous activities. By paying people to not work, offers an opportunity for the idle mind to create and pursue unlawful activity in the form of gangbanging, drug dealing, prostitution, extortion, GUN RUNNING, protection rackets, drive-by shootings, burglary, battery, rape and a whole host of other crimes these creatures of the ghetto have yet to discover, but are working feverishly at inventing more everyday.

    Working people on the other hand, have to actually wake up early, commute to work, put in 8 to 10 hours, commute home from work, take care of themselves and or family members. Participation in this working environment takes both a mental and physical toll on a person, forcing them into bed in order to get rested, so they may repeat the routine all over again the next day. This type of work schedule does not leave a whole lot of free time for the pursuit of crime and racketeering.

    If the Liberals are truly serious about reducing shootings and crime, they need to realize their so called compassion for Welfare must end immediately. This will rob the ghetto dwellers of their much needed financing, to have the free time required for a life of crime.

    An empty belly and rain drops on their head will be the incentive to change their ways and outlook on life.

  9. 11

    Liberal1 (objectivity)

    You and mainstream ultra-conservatives seem to think all liberals are of one mind concerning gun control—but you don’t know what you’re talking about or thinking about. People of this view are just part of the useful idiot syndrome that I hear so much about on this site.

  10. 12

    Nan G

    Holder aide who “erred” on Fast & Furious leaves Justice…..

    The Justice Department retracted that letter in December, with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. vigorously defending Mr. Weich and the department against charges of lying to Congress. “Nobody at the Justice Department has lied,” Mr. Holder said, adding that Mr. Weich did not know the information he had provided was inaccurate.

    Mr. Weich is leaving to become a law school dean when he should be going to prison.

  11. 13


    A thousand years from now sociologists will look at the early years of the 21st century and note that criminality was in direct inverse proportion to the citizen’s ability to practice armed self defense. It will take about that long for the Sarah Bradys of the world to figure it out.

  12. 14

    Mr. Irons

    And behold Liberal1’s shining example of Stupid, once again…

    Liberal1, it is YOUR side that has sought to make it Nationaly illegal to own firearms. It is your side that has repeatedly tried to silence Conservative voices. It is your side that is, as example with the Occupy Wallstreet Group, use violence to try and force your agendas. It is your side who tried to forcefully change voting laws to disinfranchise legal citizens at the polls by allowing non-citizens to vote for your party favorites. It is your side that is doing what you’re painting conservatives of doing.

    More importantly, some examples is the rhetoric that echos out from, Netroots, Daily Kos, etc. Liberal hot beds of banter screeching how, “Damn dirty conservatives” did this or that in their areas… when their areas are dominated by Democrats and not a single GOP might even have domestic or State legal presence. Did that ever dawn on your pea brain?

    Here’s a bit of history you should read: The British Empire’s Quaritine of Boston. Google it, read a history book, or just watch a factualy correct documentary about it. Then again most Liberals don’t understand why we Consitutionalists seek to perserve our rights to train and use weapons for self defense and defense of our fellow Citizens. The First, Second and Fourth Amendments I seek the most to keep perserved in their 18th Century intentions, which means you get to keep yammering and acting stupid by insulting Conservatives without understanding us and the Government is denied from silencing you or me. You and your lot seek to re-write the 1st ammendment to silence my side of the argument and make yourself, “Correct” all the time. The last Nation that did this type of treatment to its subjects was the Soviet Union and the second most recent was the National Socialist Party of Germany (Nazis). Hell, to date Subjects of the British Common Wealth have no freedom of speech with penalties of facing jail time for speaking against the Government and the Russian Federation has no freedom of speech protections and citizens as rounded up for insulting leadership. So what do you want to be? The Liberals screamed and howled that Bush would be a dictator, arresting dissenting voices against him. That never happened and yet now Liberals have their choice of leader in office and the very same Liberal shrills are screaming and howlering to have Conservative or your, “Ultra-Conservatives” arrested or silenced. Are you sure you stand for liberty?

  13. 15

    Keyser Söze

    From the comments in American Thinker…”A Pre-Revolutionary Situation”

    …liberals believe that government can be a force for good, as long as enlightened, educated people are in charge.

    “That’s true only if you take self-proclaimed “liberals” at their word; if, by contrast, you take them at their actual record, a completely different picture emerges.

    There are two kinds of “liberals:” those who sincerely believe the irrational stuff they spout, and those who spout it for “greater” or “higher” purpose. The sincere, naive believers do the lifting and carrying for the vanguard, who believe none of that stupid stuff.

    Sincerity, incidentally, needs to be regarded with a skeptical eye. Leftists may sincerely believe government’s function is to help people, but that doesn’t make it so. Followers of the prophet may sincerely believe Jews are sub-human, but that doesn’t make it so. Race hustlers may sincerely believe they’re entitled to special treatment, but that doesn’t make it so. I don’t mean to say sincerity disqualifies belief from reality; I do, however, mean to tell you it never overrides reality.

    Sincere beliefs about “liberal” government run the gamut; the historical record, by contrast, is impossible to deny. Fact: in the twentieth century, “liberal” governments murdered over 100,000,000 citizens of their own countries. That’s not counting victims of international war. The primary offenders were the Soviet Union and communist China, followed by fascist regimes in Germany, Italy, Spain, Central and Eastern Europe, and Marxist regimes elsewhere in the world. Fact: “liberal” governments invariably deliver markedly lower material prosperity than less intrusive governments. Fact: political prisons are the exclusive province of “liberal” government.

    Self-proclaimed “liberals” sometimes object, “Maybe so, but the wrong people were in charge.” Fact: people who proclaim the goodness of government are inevitably the wrong people, because their beliefs are far out of touch with reality. The historical record clearly shows the less government, the less harm it does and the more government, the more harm. The distinction isn’t who’s in charge, but the raw quantity of government.

    Self-described “liberals” are dupes who believe things that obviously aren’t true. Real Marxists tell the same lies, but know they’re lies. Their goal is power, and the shortest, straightest path to it is Marxism. If some new religion offered a shorter, straighter path, they’d abandon Marxism in a heart beat and preach the new religion.

    Self-proclaimed “liberals” believe they’re “struggling for the soul of America,” or some such self-indulgent nonsense. While they talk about “community,” real Marxists have already taken over much of the U.S. government. Holder’s Fast & Furious scheme, for example, was a poorly thought out, poorly executed operation to subvert the Second Amendment. President Food Stamps’ bail-out of General Motors, for example, was a scheme to steal from the company’s owners and tax payers, hand billions to the unions, and rely on the unions to fund and get out votes for his reelection. The so-called “stimulus,” for yet another example, was a scheme to transfer billions from the nation’s treasury to union workers in blue states. Running up the national debt for “shovel-ready projects” was a scheme to force tax increases, create economic disruption, and hand more wealth to supporters. Devaluing the dollar and radically deepening government involvement in banking transfer wealth from business and consumers to government and deepen the perception of economic malaise, which makes it easier, in turn, for the feral government to deepen its intrusions into all aspects of American life. Attacking the coal and oil industries means we’re now more rather than less dependent on foreign oil: additional transfers of wealth via taxes, more economic disruption, and more government control.

    The Marxists have already taken over much of the U.S. government. They’re not fighting a war, but solidifying their grip on power and increaing the pace of so-called “fundamental change.” Their self-described “liberal” useful idiots are merely posing verbal distractions.”

  14. 16


    Of course they are lying. That’s what liberals do to advance their tyrannical agenda. Liberalism is a cult of deception, hate, and violence.

  15. 17


    In 2009, 60% 0f all gun-related deaths in the United States were suicides. Gun owners are more likely to kill themselves with the gun they own than to kill someone else in self defense.

    Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 23 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.

    Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.

  16. 18

    Hard Right

    jason, thanks for being so stupid as to prove us right.
    1) The 4x and suicide with the gun bought for self protection wasn’t on the site linked. Assuming it is there, it suspiciously sounds like the work of discredited anti-Constitutionalist arthur kellerman. It was his study I believe, that was proven to be little more than academic fraud. Post number 6 is about that same study. It basically debunks the claim that owning a gun means you are more likely to kill yourself (or someone in the household) with the gun than use it in self defense.

    To further bury such claims.

    “In 1975 four physicians published an article based on data derived from medical examiner files in Cuyahoga (Cleveland) County, Ohio. They noted that during the period 1958-1973, there were 148 fatal gun accidents (78% of them in the home) and 23 “burglars, robbers or intruders who were not relatives or acquaintances” killed by people using guns to defend their homes. They stated that there were six times as many home fatal gun accidents as burglars killed. (This appears to have been a miscomputation– the authors counted all 148 accidental deaths in the numerator, instead of just the 115 occurring in the home. Although the value of the number does not matter much, the correct ratio was five rather than six.)

    On the basis of these facts alone, the authors concluded that “guns in the home are more dangerous than useful to the homeowner and his family who keep them to protect their persons and property” and that “the possession of firearms by civilians appears to be a dangerous and ineffective means of self-protection.”

    Eleven years later, Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues unwittingly replicated the Rushforth findings, finding that “for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms.” The authors then concluded, just as Rushforth et al. did, that “the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned.”

    While conceding that they had made no effort to count “cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away,” the authors never acknowledged a far more pertinent and serious omission: lives saved by defensive gun use.

    The basic problem that makes these ratios nonsensical is that they are presented as risk-benefit ratios, but in fact do not reflect any benefits of keeping guns for self-protection. If one sets out to assess only the costs of a behavior, but none of its benefits, the results of such an “analysis” are a foregone conclusion. What is so deceptive about the ratio is the hint that killing burglars or intruders is somehow a “benefit” to the householder. “

    2) In Japan, firearms are extremely rare. Yet they have a higher suicide rate than America. It’s not the instrument that matters.

    “Aquaintance” violence info
    “Lott: You are referring to the often-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don’t understand is that this “acquaintance murder” number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. “Acquaintance” covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.”

    The CDC and New England Journal of medicine, are the sources of some of the quotes jason cited, but they aren’t the most reliable sources these days and haven’t been for some time.

    Leftist academic fraud

    Look at this gem I found. Go down to the 5th and 6th “facts” and see who the author(s) are. Those claims sound exactly like the ones on the site jason referenced.

  17. 19

    Mr. Irons

    And it doesn’t help that Jason just tossed out junk numbers without any context to the ratios of population abused/harmed versus the seated population it came from. Aka victim population per city or state’s population comparison.

    Aka, I could say that 25 more times likely that I’ll be mauled by a bear than a goat if I walked down a sidewalk given bears are able of violence when threatened or provoked by unknown means. This means little to nothing in terms of claims grabbing, because I don’t live near bear species are typically found to begin with. His stats doesn’t even remotely break down the demographs of the abused and the abusers who’ve been arrested State by State to even make sense of his claims.

    Owning weapons do not automatically make one prone to abuse, so this, “5 times” horse shit? I’ve seen plenty of men who never owned guns in their lives beat their children or partner into bloody pulps, sometimes right in public display (hell I’ve taken a knife to a shoulder blade by an angsty liberal trying to shut me up before). It’s not bound to only one race or gender either, women are as easy able to inflict abuse onto men and the abuser doesn’t have to own weapons to be provked. This is an example of “coincidental data” that doesn’t lead to causation or correlation given that a lot of domestic case abuses involve knives, glass, or blunt object as the major weapon used in the abuse. The major time guns play into this situation is the victim taking a lethal defense against the attacking abuser, but hey… let’s just let the Liberals toss logic right out the window.

    And as for Suicide… it’s an odd thing to hear about Liberals bemoan how guns are used in Suicide given typical modern Liberal stances on Abortion and the like. Any suicide is horrible and the warning signs of a person in trouble should be paid attention to reach out and offer help. But sometimes even with an out reached hand offering help many people who choose suicide do not want the help to choose live over death and that’s depressing. However, with or without a gun ban to try and “prevent” these from happening those who are attempting suicide will find either an illegal fire arm or another means of death. Trying to take away something from someone (especially a legal right granted by Law) to “help them” only compounds problems and might further destablize someone into irrational reactions.

    And one stat that would really irk Liberals, the cities that have placed serious gun bans or limitations within the United States such as Chicago have seen some of the highest amounts of crime for a City for the Nation. New York and I think Seattle have been also quamired in crime due to series gun bans. Let alone Washington, D.C. has stooped to the point that Politicans of both sides of the soap box need security details while the average citizen has cope with criminals who are packing heat while law biding citizens in the Captial are denied legal ownership of guns.

  18. 20

    Keyser Söze


    You need to redirect your attention, and start a campaign to demolish the Golden Gate bridge, if you are truly concerned about preventing suicides. Actually based on these statistics, all bridges should be demolished.

    “The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco has had more suicides than any other in the world,[1] the number currently being over 1,200.[1] In 2004, documentary filmmaker Eric Steel set off controversy by revealing that he had tricked the bridge committee into allowing him to film the Golden Gate for months, and had captured 23 suicides on film for his documentary The Bridge.”

  19. 21


    This s why I am glad my state has the 2nd amendment right written into it and cannot be changed or reversed without a majority vote by the populous. If the state I look to travel doesnt have reciprical CCW rights I either dont go or bypass it all together.

  20. 22

    Hard Right

    Mr. Irons raises a valid point about suicide and the left.

    Killing innocent unborn babies? No prob.
    Euthanasia? They are all for it.
    Pushing the elderly into their graves to save resources for the younger people? They love it. (until it’s their turn)
    A chance to pretend they care about suicide in order to strip a right away from the law abiding? They go after it like a crackhead after a $100 rock.

  21. 23


    @Hard Right: The 4x and suicide with the gun bought for self protection wasn’t on the site linked.

    This is what is known as a deduction. From “Firearms were used in 18,735 suicides in the U.S. in 2009, constituting almost 60% of all gun deaths,” liberals and other people who know how to think can deduce that gun owners are more likely to kill themselves with a gun than to kill somebody else. It follows from the clever observation that 60% is more than one-half. People shot in self defense are part of the remaining 40%.

    Open carry is OK around here now. It’s a stupid liberalized interpretation of state gun law. I saw some swaggering yahoo wearing his gun on his hip in the drug store yesterday. That sort of macho display only increases his odds of being shot. It’s a provocation to other yahoos.

  22. 24

    E.Z. Agnew

    in my hometown we have a low crime rate largely do to the reputation of killing home invaders and those who attempt to rob local buissnesses. Now this is just a theory, but say harlam gets the same reputation. Eventually simple word of mouth gets criminals to avoid targeting buisnesses in Harlem. Ergo crime in area is lowered. now do you think that harlem could get the reputation with no guns. Hell no!

  23. 25

    Hard Right

    Jason, your deduction is incorrect. The links and paragraph I have posted explain why.

    I will post a portion of it again for you.

    “The basic problem that makes these ratios nonsensical is that they are presented as risk-benefit ratios, but in fact do not reflect any benefits of keeping guns for self-protection. If one sets out to assess only the costs of a behavior, but none of its benefits, the results of such an “analysis” are a foregone conclusion. ”

    In other words, bogus.

  24. 26


    “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts.” Mitt Romney

    “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” Mitt Romney

    “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.” Mitt Romney

  25. 27


    Interesting how the wrong Mitt Romney quotes trigger the spam filter. Namely, any of his well known anti-assault weapon or pro-gun control quotes.

  26. 28



    @Jason: Romney is a gun rights idiot. He’s only slightly better than Obama. ANYONE that uses the term “assault weapons” is a fearmonger and ignorant tool.

  27. 29


    and he got bashed his head on the concrete, loosing a lot of blood and got his nose broken,
    before he got the assurance that his life would be terminated, that is in extremist,
    and what does he get for having waited so long, is a murder charge, and many screws in the wheel keeping him and his family fearing for their life after the black panthers called for a lynching, along with the blacks elected in THE WHITE HOUSE

  28. 30

    Hard Right

    Yeah, that’s it jason. The site’s spam filters are set to protect Romney. Jeez you leftists are mentally ill.

  29. 31


    I’m not the one voting for the man who’s opposed nearly every position I support. Let’s run a little Romney quote test:

  30. 34



    @Jason: Even a casual reader of this blog would know that I allow every commenter through, even the liberals. Greg, Liberal, Larry, Rich, Ron…they can all attest to that. I get involved only in extreme circumstances and will give a warning before they are given the moderation hammer or outright ban. Spam filters pick up all kind of comments sometimes and when I can get to it I get them out. But for you to suggest that this site is protecting Romney, of all people, is ridiculous. Romney is ObamaLite to me. While I will do everything I can to see that Obama is thrown out come November the last thing I will be doing is protecting Romney.

    An automated curtailment of 1st Amendment rights

    Holy crap….you cannot be this stupid. You think I MUST allow you to comment on FA or if not I’m denying you your first amendment rights? Seriously?

  31. 35


    Mr. Irons
    yes, and I see that , some case lately discovered are telling that some legitimate gun owners which used their gun to kill the assailant, are treated like criminals and given a hard time, and taken away in jail,
    when the obvious is exposed by some bloggers,
    is in it suspicious of the GOVERNMENT using their MINDSET power to mingle in to influence the justice outcome?
    if the justice players are liberals minded, they might not allowed ,using many tricks
    from their own given power , to get the innocent in murder charge,
    it look like it to me, even as an not learned of the law person,
    OR ONE OF TWO STORY where a brave military back in his beloved AMERICA being attack by two guys with a steel pipe, and shot them after body encounter, is now found in jail, and the note come from a lawyer who has followed the story but not participate in, just one comment from her, found me suspicious again there was surely intervention influence from higher to get to their intent
    to ban gun laws,
    and another was from previous last year early on, where a police officer in prison
    for shooting a criminal,
    and other, which I stumble on it but did not at the time pay attention on the possible influence pressure, but I did found unjust at the time,BECAUSE OF A JAIL SENTENCE,
    and of course the one in the news of GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, I STATED ON A PREVIOUS COMMENT,

  32. 36


    Holy crap….you cannot be this stupid. You think I MUST allow you to comment on FA or if not I’m denying you your first amendment rights? Seriously?

    I wasn’t being serious. I can tell from the comments there’s no political censorship here. But the spam filter sure did block those Romney quotes.