I made Twitchy!

A couple days ago The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence tweeted:

Go to a gun show and you will find bomb making kits. The @NRA is more than guns, it is using violence as a means to impact political discourse. It is dangerous.

As you might imagine, this aroused a lot of disbelief in those who have actually been to gun shows. I responded with:


What color is the sky in your universe?

Twitchy captured the exchange and provided this commentary:

The investigation is still ongoing, and at this point nobody knows the person or people who sent suspicious packages that contained devices that were suspected to be bombs to several Democrats. But just because the devices in question aren’t guns doesn’t mean a way can’t be found to blame the NRA. Here’s the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence with the hottest of hot takes.

They included my response.

Go to the Twitchy post and then do a search for “Huffman”.

Very cool.


4 thoughts on “I made Twitchy!

  1. CSGV’s twitter account is run by the night janitor, I believe, given the quality of the commentary there.

    Its constantly tinged with the angst of not getting that sweet, sweet Bloomberg money.

  2. Anyone, and anything, can be denigrated and vilified. That’s not a standard then. Since it can apply to anyone or anything, it means nothing.

    If there’s no such thing as an “objective measure of ultimate truth”, anything goes.

    What all that means of course is; evil will be successful in creating chaos and destruction.

    Of COURSE the right to keep and bear arms has, and always has had, and always will have, political implications. The would-be power-grabbers will always hate the idea.

    “[the NRA] it is using violence as a means to impact political discourse.”

    See how they’re turning it all around backwards and calling it, in essence, terrorism? It’s extremely clever.

    It’s actually a true statement, if you think about it– An armed populace, serving as a deterrent to would-be dictators is, in fact, using “violence” (that is, the mere possibility of an armed defense of liberty) “as a means to impact political discourse”.

    It’s brilliant, and if we don’t understand it as such then we’re out of touch.

    Of course we have the truth on our side, if we choose to be on the side of truth. Every government action beyond the protection of the basic rights, as explained in the Declaration, is coercive. Coercion, the main business of all corrupt governments, is the use or threat of use of violance as a means of controlling people. Therefore, those who accuse us of using “violence” are the biggest promoters of violence (coercion on a mass scale).

    It’s like the elementary school bully who pokes and prods you until you turn around and pop him in the nose, and then he screams and cries, “He hit meeee!!” Except in this case (referring to the mere keeping and bearing of arms) all you did to the 7 year-old bully was show him your clenched fist, and that was enough to send him into hyperventilation and crying for attention from the teacher.

    Every child bully understands the concept of blaming others for what he does, but not every child bully is as articulate and clever about it as today’s Marxist agitators.

    • I wondered about that.

      If so, they would be wrong. There is a big difference between a reactive target and a bomb.

Comments are closed.