Quote of the day—Dianna Muller

As I watched that first debate, and I heard Hillary Clinton answer the question about her enemies, my mouth dropped to the floor. I couldn’t believe what I had just heard from someone who wants to lead this country. She just called 5 million law-abiding Americans her enemy, and she was proud of it! Of all the atrocities going on in the world, we are what she sees as an enemy? 

In this day and age, when we are constantly being lectured on “acceptance” and “tolerance” of people who don’t look or act like us, how is it acceptable for a presidential candidate to call out gun owners as enemies? This seems like textbook bullying tactics—maybe worse. Her comments segregate, demonize, blame, and suggest that we don’t have common sense if we disagree with what she and her anti-Second Amendment cronies define as “common-sense gun control.”

Dianna Muller
oc_a1fd_enemiesmuller_main_7-6
22-year Tulsa Police Department veteran and professional 3-gun world champion.
July 6, 2016
Hillary’s Enemies List: Dianna Muller
[Of course the NRA and gun owners are at the top of her enemies list. We are in a 5th or 6th Generation War. We must recognize this and respond accordingly or we will be defeated and probably handled just as leftist have treated their defeated enemies in the past.—Joe]

11 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Dianna Muller

  1. Being that the Progressive Movement is an enemy of the United States, then of course we who adhere to the American Principles are their enemies. We didn’t pick this fight though. They did. They’re the rebels. The rebels have taken over.

  2. Interesting times indeed. Most of us have heard the expression; “no more free wacos”. It would seem the BLM has declared their tribe and the line not to cross. That the Second Civil War (if that’s what this is) would start like this is really no surprise. Who has the least to lose to the police state? I’m not judging or taking sides, study the facts, dump the emotions, prepare! Rule of law is dead.
    Note to BLM, mind your target selection. If you start shooting random white people this will turn on you fast. Look at history, we don’t shoot each other, we organize into huge armies and burn whole fucking continents down. Again, not taking sides. This is no surprise, a well-armed people and a police state don’t coexist. Use caution.

    • I thought you were talking about the Bureau of Land Management. It all made perfect sense. As I got to the end I realized there’s a newer BLM that also fits your comments, and I guess you meant that one.

    • They’ve been shooting random white people for almost fifty years, and this strategy has been very successful for them. Look at the number of once-great cities where they have successfully “handed Whitey the eviction notice,” with the tacit approval and assistance of a judicial system that works for them, not us. It has gained them fatter welfare checks (“reparations”) every time, it’s gained them Affirmative Action, it’s gained them a political party that is absolutely terrified of them and is constantly tripping over its own feet running to offer them more free stuff that we pay for.

      I say this for information and entertainment purposes only. As a student of history, I would say that if the rest of us were going to organize and put a stop to this, we would have to do it against the full might of the US government, which has for generations favored them over us, which has for generations tried to disarm us (but not them) in order to protect them from us, and which I suspect would be cheerfully willing to use nuclear weapons on its own soil to protect them from us if anything like what you were describing seemed to be gaining momentum. And if it were going to happen, it’s about fifty years late. Such events seem implausible in the foreseeable future. So where does that leave us?

  3. Yes. If every gun owner and the NRA is to blame for every criminal or nutjob or terrorist murdering people, then consumers of wine and beer are responsible for every death by drunk driver, as it is their consumption of alcohol that makes the economy of scale that reduces the cost to where the alcoholic can afford to overindulge and drive drunk causing death. Even if their consumption is “in moderation.”

    • Yes, under the pathological reasoning of Progressives, all drivers, motor vehicle manufacturers and the AAA are similarly responsible for every traffic death including vehicular homicides. Motor vehicles are after all designed specifically to hurl people and heavy loads at lethal speeds. If you drive a vehicle, you’re essentially a murderer. It means you’re OK with all the pain and death (you dirty bastard).

      The same could be said of participating in any activity that might result in injury.

      This is where we must understand the trick that’s being played on us.

      • Neil Smith has pointed out that a bunch of “progressives” not only want to disarm us, they also want to disautomobile us. It’s pretty clear if you look at the push for mass transit, and the massive subsidies of anything along those lines. The attack on the individual right to mobility hasn’t quite reached the level it has in Europe, but give it time.

        • My ex-brother-in-law, the admitted Marxist, openly admitted to me that individual rights were irrelevant to him. The believed the collective was more important that the individual and since individuals were selfish and act in their own best interest rather than the interests of the collective it meant that individual rights and actions were harmful to the collective.

          Of course, since he was a professor, he was one of the enlightened ones and presumably would among those making the decisions for the collective.

          He also told me that a lot of people made veiled threats against him.

Comments are closed.