Why are Brady Campaign supporters so violent?

In the Facebook thread here a commenter points people at his blog post on the McDonald ruling:

Stern Dixon

Read my
log post on today’s Supreme Court ruling: http://wwwtoecheesecom.blogspot.com/
Yesterday at 11:35am

And the response? It’s typical:

Suzanne MacDougall Avila

to the
above poster, take your H&K 93, shove it up your ass and pull the trigger.
Yesterday at 12:46pm · 2 people
Sara L. Messenger

Sara L.
Messenger

Could
have said it better myself Suzanne, he has to be a nut.
Yesterday at 12:52pm
Sara L. Messenger

Sara L.
Messenger

You are
sick.
Yesterday at 12:56pm
Sara L. Messenger

Sara L.
Messenger

I am not
mad but, people like you who shoot off their mouths don’t need guns.
Yesterday at 12:57pm
Suzanne MacDougall Avila

Suzanne MacDougall Avila

Thank
you, Sara. He’s not even worth arguing with. He can take his filthy mouth and
his guns somewhere else.
Yesterday at 1:20pm

There is lots of other stuff worthy of comment in the thread as well. I particularily liked the irony of this one:

Richard J. Osborne

Repeal
the Second Amendment. It belongs on the scrap heap of history along with the
provisions of the Constitution that protected slavery.
Yesterday at 9:04am · 5 people

If they can repeal the Second Amendment then people could repeal the 13th Amendment as well. For some reason they can’t seem to grasp the principle of freedom.

9 thoughts on “Why are Brady Campaign supporters so violent?

  1. You know, if they were honest enough to at least try to do it the legal way and go for a repeal, they wouldn’t be nearly as dangerous.

    And there is no ampersand in HK93.

  2. Repeal the Second Amendment. It belongs on the scrap heap of history along with the provisions of the Constitution that protected slavery.

    Funny, I don’t seem to recall ANY provisions in the Constitution that “protected slavery”. Certainly, in order to gain ratification, the framers had to avoid any provisions against slavery but they also studiously avoided putting any in that guaranteed it also. The amendment to end slavery was needed to invalidate the volumes of case law which provided stare decisis (this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb settled matters) supporting slavery not because the Constitution somehow protected it. It really makes one wonder if the guy who wrote that has ever READ the Constitution. Wait. No it doesn’t…one can simply infer that he hasn’t.

  3. Osborne’s comment is particularly ironic given that during the time the 14th Amendment was being debated freed black slaves were routinely being rounded up, disarmed, and murdered.

    I absolutely love that folks like Osborne are so simple and narrow-minded that they can’t see the broader implications of their views. If one specifically enumerated right can simply cease to exist once repealed what’s to stop HIS political enemy from using the same means to strip him of those rights he holds dear?

    I’m just now delving into the opinion and I am sickened. I’m sickened by the mountain of statements & historical evidence that those in the dissent had to ignore to come to their conclusion. I’m also unsurprised to see them provide much if any evidence casting doubt upon that provided by the majority.

    They acted like any average anti-gun blogger would. When confronted with overwhelming evidence proving them wrong they simply ignored it or denied its existence. They did this in an attempt to constitutionalize their personal bigotries and barely hidden contempt for the 2nd Amendment.

  4. Translation: “We insist that everyone be disarmed and we won’t listen to any debate on this and Lodz and Warsaw could never happen here and we’re betting your lives on it because you have to be as stupid as we are. So there.”

  5. Tell me it isn’t so.
    Saw a Similar Conversation on Michael Z. Williamsons Facebook Page.
    http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=1608880891&v=wall&story_fbid=130812820285797

    “Tristan Alexander: Fine, my last comment. I see OWNING a gun is more inportant than my 25 years with the same person just because we are both male! I understand that is how MOST seem to see it. Hope you all shoot each other!”

    “Tristan Alexander: James. I know I am hostile and emotional, thjis is my life, NOT some TOY I want to won like your GUNS! marriuage was for most of human history a LEGAL contract and NOT religious. the Church should have NO say in it!

    ” In the grand scheme of things,the ability of the citizen to OWN a gun is more important than anyones personal relationship.” that is the craziest statment I have EVER heard! So since I now see ou value your toys more than others rights, I will stop bothering you with my LIFE! Sorry again to eveyone else I really will stop now!”

  6. Having lived through the 1960s era of mass insanity among the youth, I consider myself extremely fortunate, in one sense, that there was no internet when I was a kid. The internet is a fantastic tool, but in my hands in my youth I would have made the most disgusting fool of myself (shudder). Excuse me while go and vomit just thinking about it.

    Some things are best left unsaid, but usually a person has to learn that the hard way, after it’s too late. Keep that in mind when you see such disgrace. “There, but for the grace of God, go I” comes to mind.

    All we can do is try to educate our kids to some level before they get facebook pages, text messaging, et al, of their own. (I know; some of these people are full grown, but adolescence can often linger)

Comments are closed.