Storm of Gun Trolls: The Bully Offense


Gun trolls exemplify the type of person not responsible enough to own firearms.

gun trollsOne learns, pretty much right away, that if you release an article on the web, you attract trolls. The bigger the site, the greater the number of trolls. This writer had been dealing with them in a minor fashion, up until recently.

Upon release of an article critical of Jenny McCarthy, some anti-vaxxer trolls appeared, but they were easily dismissed. McCarthy has since tried to walk back her misinformation campaign about vaccines. Then I wrote about America’s gun violence problem and how it’s exacerbated by gun lobbies and I got my first real taste of serious harassment. The comments underneath the piece, here on the site and wherever it was linked exploded with angry rhetoric.

Gun TrollsSome folks even went to my Facebook profile to harass me there. Some attacked me on twitter. A few sent me very disturbing messages. Some now follow me from site to site, insulting and attempting to shout down anything I publish. One has become this very own site’s pet troll, and can often be found raging against the writer of the day.

Gun TrollsCertainly this was to be expected. I knew it would happen and, indeed, counted on it in to validate the points of the piece, as I will do again here to some degree.

You can’t discuss anything with gun trolls. They aren’t there to be reasonable anyway, they just want to tell you how wrong you are. If they get to attack or insult you, so much the better. That they are illustrating exactly why it’s impossible to make any progress on the gun violence issue isn’t important. They don’t want a discussion, they want their way. Period.

Gun TrollsGun trolls don’t really have arguments, legible ones anyway. Mostly all they have are semantics, false equivalencies, and the ability to adamantly express “Nuh-UH!” The best of their points rely on the fraudulent research of John R. Lott. But Lott says what they like to hear so what he says must therefore be true, in their minds. This is how Lott has managed to keep his career after all, the “More Guns” crowd love him, and defend him regardless of the sordid details of his past.

Lott, by the way, is a bit of a gun troll himself. After building a career upon tainted data, in turn used as cornerstones of gun lobby arguments, Lott mostly uses himself as a go to source when defending his own questionable past. His tactics are limited to linking to his own site, or to the organization he founded and is president of, or to people with whom he has worked in collusion. When all of that is dismissed, Lott can only call you a liar and run away.

Gun TrollsThis is not to say all gun owners are gun trolls. Of course they’re not. Responsible gun owners aren’t the issue. But those attempting to intimidate, harass, or insult, cannot be considered responsible gun owners. Responsible and mature people don’t try to bully others. If the big talking point for “responsible” gun owners is that firearms are used for self defense, then making offensive remarks makes them look irresponsible. Pretty easy math there.

Gun TrollsThe gun bully offense is waves of trolls sent to attack anyone challenging their “all guns all the time” ideology. Facebook pages such as “The Hypocrisy and Stupidity of Gun Control Advocates” regularly link to posts about strengthening weapons responsibility legislation while commanding their followers to attack. They particularly enjoy harassing Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. They smear her over and over again.

Open Carry Texas also wages an intermittent intimidation campaign against Moms Demand. Their members show up, armed to the teeth, to display weapons to four women having lunch. They also single out individuals they don’t agree with and invite their members to “git ’em!” Their latest tactic is to release personal information of whomever calls the police on one of their “Open Carry Walks,” even though the police instructed the public to do just that if they see people walking around with firearms.

I mean c’mon, if I see a dozen folks strolling through town brandishing shotguns and AR-15s, I’m calling the cops. I’m certainly not approaching them, especially if I’ve got my kid with me. Not even if I’m carrying a licensed and registered gun myself, regardless of the fact that I’m not walking through any kind of a situation that requires me to pack heat. You think I’m hauling my son into a potential firefight? You’re out of your mind.

Gun TrollsOne of OCT’s members, Jacob Dova, now calling himself “Ben Franklin,” contacted me randomly. He was under the impression I had insulted the size of his genitalia. I hadn’t. He then told me about how he and his group were the victims of bullying and rambled disjointedly while I simply pointed out that reason might advance his cause more than belligerence. To no avail.

It needs to be pointed out that Mr. Dova did not give me the impression he was entirely stable mentally. I hope I’m wrong. But for “guns everywhere” folks who blame the mentally ill for shootings, you might want to start with gun bullies who send threatening messages or stalk people they don’t like over the Internet. You will be harder pressed to find more likely examples of potentially unhinged shooters, don’t you think?

And these are just two examples of groups sending concerted attacks of gun bullies to harass and troll those they don’t like. There are many many more FB pages, usually with “Open Carry” in the title, or “AK-47s for America” or whatever else. They scream “No Compromise” or “Never Surrender” or other vague statements about patriotism.

Gun TrollsI was taught that threatening people was wrong. Harassing women is what bad guys do. Insulting, demeaning, or belittling someone is the mark of an immature and irresponsible mind, which in turn is a sign of someone who shouldn’t possess a gun. If you’re going to try and bully someone with Internet comments then you can’t be trusted with a firearm.

You don’t need a gun to be a “real man” or “real woman.” A responsible gun owner is well trained and constantly aware of the heavy responsibility owning a firearm brings. They are not toys. They should not be shown off in uncontrolled environments. Ultimately, if you say you are using firearms for protection, then your opinion should be automatically disqualified if you are bullying people for stating opinions differing from your own.

Americans need to admit that there is a dangerous faction of their society, one that takes owning firearms beyond a right to fetishization. These are the gun bullies. The Open Carry advocates. The subscribers of the fraudulent John R. Lott Jr. The trolls. They presume to speak for everyone, but they absolutely do not. Just look at the joke of Operation: American Spring to see that. A handful of nut bags milling about D.C. in the rain. Do they represent you? They shouldn’t.

Gun TrollsDon’t let weapons extremists speak for you. Yes, you should be free to own a firearm, but you should also be able to prove you are mature and responsible enough to own one. Your right to own a firearm should not take precedence upon your neighbors right to live, should you suffer from mental illness, or have a history of domestic abuse or criminal activity.

And if you don’t feel free unless you own a gun, that’s not really freedom. Don’t “Second Amendment” me, either. I dealt with all gun troll talking points here.

Bullies need to be opposed. Trolls are named for horrible monsters of myth. Guns are not toys, and no, not everyone should own one. I’ve worked as a security professional long enough to be paired with plenty of guys I wouldn’t trust with a soft shell taco, let alone a firearm. The “good guy with a gun” is not present in any screenshots shown here.

Ignore trolls. Block them. They aren’t going to discuss a damn thing. They sure aren’t here to help. If they are so insistent to remain in their own world, then let’s go forward without them.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi




About Author

Chad R. MacDonald has a degree in English literature from Cape Breton University and subsequently received a full scholarship to AMDA in New York City. He is a former security professional, veteran of the hospitality industry, and experienced in both the arts as well as administration. He has been writing all his life, likes baseball, hockey, literature, science, the arts, and marine photography. Chad lives in Brooklyn with his wife and son and their gigantic cat.


  1. Pingback: Could Ammosexuals Have Paranoid Personality Disorder?

  2. Pingback: America's Gun Religion

  3. Pingback: America's Gun Violence Problem Spiraled Out Of Control Long Ago, And We Just Don't Care

  4. I feel very strongly that complete background/psychological tests should include access to ones Facebook account and if any posts are found that threaten another person’s life simply because you don’t like what they say, well that’s a big FAIL because clearly you have no respect for your weapon and the power you possess to decide when another person dies. Also, if you can’t understand the difference between regulating who can take a life vs “taking away all the guns” your not smart enough to own one either. Just my two cents.

  5. Pingback: Do Americans Want Gun Violence to Get Worse?

  6. Pingback: NRA Cheerleader Rob Kinnison: "More N*ggers, More Guns"

  7. Pingback: Weak Without Guns: Open Carry Texas

  8. Pingback: Gun Nuts Freak Out Over False "Obama Ammo Ban"

  9. Pingback: Do You Really Remember Sandy Hook? : Quiet Mike

  10. Pingback: How Gun Nuts Get Away With Insanity : Quiet Mike

  11. Pingback: Gun Fanatics Are Creeping My Facebook Profile

    • Nobody has threatened you or any of your cohorts. You’re the ones walking into businesses with guns strapped on in an effort to intimitdate peaceful citizens. Unfortunately for you, it’s having the opposite effect. Your type proves the lie of the “responsible gun owner.” Your antics on social media further prove you to be a rather unstable bunch.

    • Chad, thank you for your article(s). You have plenty of reasonable individuals in your corner and we intend to join you in speaking up from now on, regardless of the gun lobby’s tactics. Personally, I’ve had it with these lunatics. You’re absolutely correct, such people have no business owning firearms. They’re taking their idiocy too far, making enemies right, left, and center. Please carry on, Chad. I’m adding your blog to my favorites list.

  12. Pingback: What Happens When You Oppose Gun Lobbies? : Quiet Mike

  13. Pingback: Cultural Marxism and the Roots of Conservative Hatred : Quiet Mike

  14. Pingback: Warning Signs of the Moncton Shootings : Quiet Mike

  15. Pingback: Intimidation Justification: Gunbullies Exposed : Quiet Mike

  16. While I’m not really a supporter of guns, you’re mistaken about the definition of the word troll. Trolls never add anything to the conversation and they aren’t simply people who are opposed to your argument. Trolling comes from the fishing term for slowly moving the lure across the water to attract fish. The same applies with trolling on the internet. Trolls generally make nonsensical statements with the sole purpose of upsetting another person. While I’m sure you get true to the word trolls, your average dumb person who opposes your viewpoint isn’t a troll. He’s just a dumb person that can’t respect another person’s opinion.

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      You’re not wrong. But the point of this piece was to provoke the gun nut pages who unleash their legions of followers onto the posts of those they don’t like. The term “troll” was helpful in getting them to take the bait.

      • Pro-gun people just stop and talking to this guy he doesn’t want to listen to you, he doesn’t care no matter what you say or evidence you have to back yourself up he will deny it.

        Seriously, just stop let him have his little self-pity page and lets get on our with lives like i said he doesn’t care and he wont listen yur just wasting your time.

        • Yeah don’t get all but hurt about it….I am sure you can find other stuff to snivel about….how bout that operation spring tea bag deal….that should give up some serious bitch ammo…..even though you were not there, it doesn’t mean you can’t complain about others not showing up!!!

      • So you specialize in writing clickbait? No wonder you are getting such harsh feedback. Improve your writing skills and you might get different results….

  17. Pingback: Operation American Fail : Political Moll

    • Well this David Marchus guy is a gross, idiot coward and I hope you reported him. I’m sure you were hoping some shitstain like him would come along and give you something to cry wolf about though. I will call you for what you are, Chad, a dishonest, hyperbole spewing pud that loves to play victim and has neither the intelligence or courage to back your bogus claims, but I would never say anything about your child. BTW: If you look over this idiot’s FB page, you will see he likes posting up pics of himself drunk and nothing on his “likes” list shows him even having any interest in guns the pro 2A movement. He also used the word “clip” in his little e-threat. Nobody uses that word in the shooting community.

      Paul Joe G

      • Chad R. MacDonald on

        On the one hand you condemn him for threatening me and then you say he shouldn’t be taken seriously because he parties drunk a lot. Oh, well, let’s hope you’re around to excuse him when he gets behind the wheel or, I don’t know, fires a gun while drunk!

        He represents exactly who “responsible” gun owners need to shut down, and that has been the point of everything I have written regarding firearms. Stop the lunatic fringe, then we’ll get somewhere.

        But you can’t see that, can you Paul? No you hate me too much and you juuuuuust can’t resist taking shots at me. That’s why I banned you and your little sidekick, Buckey, from my Facebook profile, you two harassed me there repeatedly making it clear you would never stop.

        You know Buckey denied that repeatedly, called me a liar about it, and only admitted to it when I cornered him on it, and went right back to calling me a liar even though he was the one caught in dishonesty. That’s the guy attacking me right alongside you. You don’t want to stop the lunatic fringe at all, because that’s you.

        Yeah, I’m cowardly, sure. I called out the gun trolls, and you came running right alongside them. Check out all the commenters raging against me, all the “Anonymous” profiles and pseudonyms. They are the ones hiding their faces, not me. Hell, even you started here as “Anonymous” until you were called on it. Still having trouble signing in, Paulie? Sign in with your Facebook. You know, unless you’re afraid someone would stalk you to your profile. That would be awful, huh?

        And here you are, attacking me again, like you always do. You are my own little Internet stalker. You have long ago lost the point of what I am saying, you just hate, and have to attack. You are exactly who I write about in this piece, and I am very happy you finally decided to show up to this troll trap party.

        Take a bow, Paul Joe, my little pet troll. Now do tricks for Daddy. Roll over, lie down, speak, and go on another hate-filled rant against me. C’mon boy, show everybody what you got!

        *kissy noise kissy noise kissy noise*

        • I’m not trying to hide anything, Chad. I’ve said before that for some reason I cannot log into this page with my FB account. That’s why I sign all my posts and I was using my personal FB account on your FB page where you banned me and Buckey, so nice try, Sherlock. Anyways, it appears you are under the impression that you actually make me angry and my comments are me “raging and trying to shout you down”. Don’t flatter yourself., Chad. You are hardly relevant to anything important. Getting angry over a discussion with you would be like getting angry over popping bubble wrap. Quit playing such a victim, already. You’re going to tasked with the very important job of showing a little boy how a man is supposed to behave and this running all over the internet going “Look everybody! He’s stalking me! He’s attacking me! He’s tying to shot me down!” every time somebody argues with you about you the drivel you put up for the entire public to read is not setting a good example.
          Quit being such a drama queen, man.
          Paul Joe G

          • Chad R. MacDonald on

            LOL! That would make sense if you weren’t following me around from site to site posting insults under whatever I write. But you are.

            Don’t want to be called on being a stalking troll, don’t do it. And if you can’t take responsibility for your actions, how are you supposed to take responsibility for a firearm?

            Buckey is also blocked from my personal Facebook profile and it isn’t stopping him from logging in here from FB so that’s your own issue. My FB has nothing to do with this website.

            • Chad, you write misleading stuff about a certain group of people on a public page and then cry victim when they criticize you for it. I have yet to see you actually back any of your claims with anybody. You won’t do it. You dismiss, deflect, put up strawmen and cry victim. You lecturing anybody on taking responsibility for their own actions is about as laughable as listening to a serial rapist lecture a teenage boy on how to respect women.

              I would also ask you to explain how not agreeing with your drivel is proof that I should not be allowed to own a firearm, but we all know you won’t.
              Paul Joe G

              • Chad R. MacDonald on

                Yeah. I call out bullies, Paul. If you’re not someone who stalks those who’s opinion you don’t like, constantly attacking them, you shouldn’t have a problem with that. I don’t care how you try to twist my words, you’re the one who can’t take responsibility for what he says. So, again, how are we supposed to think you can take responsibility for a firearm? Second time I have put that to you.

                Wow, you are really getting your panties in a knot over this huh? Love to dish it out but you sure can’t take it, can you Paul? Typical bully. That’s fine, this endeavor is meant to draw out the bullies and trolls, and you’re doing just what I want.

                Dance for us some more. I’ll make popcorn.

      • You know… I’m of the mind that if ignorant “responsible gun owners” want to hang around their personal property taking turns accidently shooting one anther in the face or offing their family members, who am I to complain? I tend to chalk it up to evolution doing it’s work… self deportation from the gene pool, if you will. BUT, when your tribe starts organizing efforts to charge around businesses and public areas like a an armed hillbilly mob, when you start organizing virtual lynch parties on social medea, and when you start threatening people with violence, then we’ve got a problem and the rest of us aren’t about to tolerate it. You can take that to bank.

  18. Texas TopCat on

    “I was taught that threatening people was wrong.” – so were most of the rest of us. Now, why exactly are you so strongly going after groups like OCT when the bullies in this discussion are clearly MAIG, MDA, M Bloomberg and Shannon Watts. Sure, some of the pro-gun people have been pushed and bullied enough to say things that they should not say. However, if you look at the scene from an un-bias point of view, there is no way that the gun control “people” are not bullies. Look at the attacks on Staples, Chipotie, and Starbucks. Look at the false police reports called in against people doing legal activities like carry of long guns.
    The real “bunch of crazies” are the gun control bullies with their “common sense” term used for extreme gun control laws.

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      Are you seriously trying to equate what you’re saying with someone threatening to kill and feed me my own child? Really? That’s level to you is it?

        • Chad R. MacDonald on


          Yeah, after he threatened to put one between my eyes and empty a clip in my dead face?

          What the fuck is wrong with you? You’re DEFENDING this monster?

          • Defending? certainly not. i just think your an imbecile for getting so worked up about it. And you think gun owners are the fearful ones who get their fears played upon by special interest groups, ha!

              • let me put it to you this way. you seem to be under the impression that there death threats are actually serious. however they are not. you want to know why some pro-gun people threaten to “kill” gun-control people? they know it makes you squirm. gun-control people generally could never pull it off because no one would take it seriously. but pro-gun people generally have guns, and therefore are automatically viewed as a threat. And some use that to screw with people such as yourself. so by making this post really all you are doing is really just validating the behavior. good job.

                And the idea that you think you even remotely know “who i am” is foolish.

                • Chad R. MacDonald on

                  Hey man, the people who want to threaten me for my opinion are on display here. Look them up and shut them down yourself. They’re the ones making your life so terribly misunderstood that you have to hide your real name and face, not me. Yeah. You’re REALLY brave.

                  And right back atcha with the “you don’t know me” shit.

                  • hide? please, i just put my email in and this is what popped up. maybe its linked to my Mercs profile, idk. but im not going to make a separate profile for this.

                    and for what reason would a validate them by seeking them out to “put them down”?

                    And you also seem to be under the false impression that the treatment by gun-control people toward pro-gun people is somehow better, it is not. you can complain about “death threats” but calling people “evil, child killers, mental cases, ect” is no better.

                    • Chad R. MacDonald on

                      No. I’m pointing out the bullies in America’s gun culture. That you’re so intent on attacking my opinion that you can’t see that says everything I need to know about you.

                      Have a nice day.

    • When the toothless hicks show up at a mall fully armed , where there are mothers of victims hoping to get some sort of reasonable gun legislation passed, is the only reason they are there is for some sort of neanderthal love in???

  19. Logicus Prime on

    “Open Carry Texas also wages an intermittent intimidation campaign against Moms Demand.”

    Chad, if you want to be taken seriously you might want to use a less biased (and hypocritical) source than Media Matters. Despite its claim to be a conservative media watchdog, it’s obviously a Democratic advocacy group. It’s founder, David Brock, is a Democratic political activist (from his Twitter profile) who apparently had an armed bodyguard while his organization railed against guns for others. The author of the linked piece worked for both the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence Legal Action Project and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which have, at best, a tenuous relationship with honesty. BTW, I’m no fan of the NRA’s frequently shrill rhetoric, either. I don’t drink anybody’s Kool-Aid.

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      Get back to me when MDA threatens your life and the life of your only child for expressing your opinion and not before. Thanks.

      • Logicus Prime on

        Playing the victim is not an answer. It’s completely irrelevant to my comments, but not unexpected.

        • Chad R. MacDonald on

          Yeah. We’re done LP. You talk to yourself from now on. I thank you for helping me build my points.

  20. Chad, i don’t see any mention of Shannon Watts stalking and harassing Linda Elliot of 1Millionmomsagainstguncontrol. Linda was preparing for her interview on national tv and Shannon unblocked her on twitter to harass her. Then had her low educated mommies harass. Shannon called the producer to try to get the interview cancelled. And we are the bullies ? We do not block someone with an opposing view. MDA does just for asking a question.

  21. }}} That they are illustrating exactly why it’s impossible to make any progress on the gun violence issue isn’t important. They don’t want a discussion, they want their way. Period.

    Yeah, that bitch Rosa Parks!!! All she had to do was stay in her place and keep her mouth shut about her worthless “rights”. She just “wanted her own way”.

    Sorry, my rights are not at your discretion. That’s why they are called “rights”.

    And you are quite correct, there’s no discussion to be had on the matter.

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      Oh okay. Threatening to shoot people in the face is the same as what Rosa Parks did.

      I hope you play basketball with the ability to reach like that.

  22. you know this article really made me think back to the one time i tried to correct someone who was so blatantly anti-gun. it actually involved the open carry picture from the Texas in and out and was posted by MDA. so i followed where TTAG shared it (they did not give out a so called “attack order” against mda. i was reading some of the comments posted by these women and when one of the said something along the lines of “oh that’s an assault rifle he cant have that they are illegal anyway.” i made a post politely pointing out that they are fully legal, particularly in Texas, which doesn’t have gun laws as strict as California and new york and such. but that they are in fact “armalight rifle-15” not “assault rifle-15″ and for that they banned me.

    this is the same kind of reasoning im seeing here. you disagree with someone therefore they are a troll. granted the person who said something about dismemberment was way out of line, but this is the internet and more often than not the hate flies. but relating everyone who disagrees with you as associating with that one person isnt fair. ive read most of your replies to ppl on here and thats your major talking point.

    ” when you have people threatening to dismember and feed you your only child because you say something they don’t like, then I will take YOU seriously”
    ” Take a good look at who’s on your side, a guy who wants to kill an infant and feed it to his parent. That’s the guy on your side. Go ahead, defend him.”
    “Which part of threatening to kill, dismember, and feed an infant to it’s parent sounds like a citizen going about lawful affairs to you? ”
    “You folks have fun defending why I am not entitled to my opinion but a guy who threatens to kill, dismember, and feed an infant to his parent is:”

    need i go on? everyone is entitled to there opinions and i agree with that, but if someone were to write an article stating they believed it should be legalized to kick and abuse dogs they they would have plenty of “trolls” attacking them as well. many in the gun community look at firearms in that way. by trying to control guns, and to make them illegal in one form or another is essentially the same as legalizing animal abuse. now before you attack me for saying a gun is a living breathing thing, im not saying that at all. just saying that for my self, a firearm has a special place in my heart, that i love everything about the shooting sport, from modifying

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      Walk a mile in their moccasins. I’m not nearly as high profile as MDA and just look at the amount of shit I am dealing with. And not just here, on twitter, private messages, whatever else. I wrote this article to see if gun nut pages would be stupid enough to send a swarm of trolls and prove me right, and lo and behold, here you all are.

      I love shooting as a sport too. Nowhere did I speak out against that. Instead I pointed out that bullying is wrong. If you didn’t find this article due to it being linked by HaSOGCA or Truth About Guns or Gunwire or wherever else, then this article isn’t aimed at you. If you did, then smarten up.

      You go ahead and deal with the death threats against yourself and your family for daring to offer an opinion and get back to me. Until then, you got nothing,

  23. Ladies and gentlemen, the author of this article made the following accusation about me-

    “And now here you are, defending a guy who said he’d kill my son and feed him to me. What exactly is wrong with you?”

    Yet refuses to show where I ever did anything of the sort.

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      Robert. Enough. Your comment was answered. If you can’t act like an adult, you should not be here.

      Stop starting new threads before I answer your old ones.

  24. I love how this guy writes inflammatory articles, then plays the victim card when confronted. Absolute coward. Or as he would say, “bully”. Bullies really don’t like it when anyone stands up to them, and Chad here is proof.

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      I’m addressing you right now in the other threads you started, Robert. But thanks for proving me right about your belligerence.

    • Dude….are you the guy they named the Bucky Beaver Badge after???? do you have one on your uniform now??? Or is that one of the cut backs of the less government deal??? Like the meds you should be on???

  25. Chad, I challenged you multiple times to discuss your prior article on gun control with me. You just dropped one cop out after another. You bemoan that everyone who disagrees with you is a “gun troll” and a “bully”, yet when called upon to engage in an adult conversation, and defend claims you make, you refuse.

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      Your story is told in the article Robert. You stalked me to and harassed me on my Facebook profile and became this site’s number one commenter in a 24 hour period. You have proven over and over again that you won’t ever stop, and I don’t have time for your never-ending carousel of “Nuh-UH!”

      Take a bow, Resident Troll! Wouldn’t be the same without you!

      • Chad, this Is exactly what I am talking about. I notice that you didn’t cite me in your article. At this point, you are smearing me, lying about me. How about you show a shred of Intellectual courage and defend your assertions? And no, “I addressed that in the article” is not defending your claims.

        Show us a shred of intellectual honesty.

        • Chad R. MacDonald on

          I didn’t name you, no, you weren’t the worst of it, just the most persistent.

          You’re denying that you went to my Facebook profile and wouldn’t leave me alone until I had to block you? Really? Going to stand by that statement are you?

          • Yes, I went to your public Facebook page and confronted you about your article. I seem to recall that you accused me of sending you some nasty tweets, which you refused to present.

            Now, do you deny that you refused to defend against any criticisms I leveled at your article? Do you deny that, Chad? Do you deny that you refused to engage anyone who mounted any legitimate criticisms, regardless of how polite and civil they were?

            • Chad R. MacDonald on

              No. I never said you sent those tweets. I said I was getting quite a lot of harshly negative feedback, including tweets and your statements. You just assumed it was all about you.

              I told you then like I’m telling you now, like I said in that piece, that some people aren’t worth talking to, because they only want to insult you and shut you down.

              You have called me liar, coward, bully, amongst other names, while denying you stalked me until I cornered you. By your own words, you have no intellectual honesty.

              And now here you are, defending a guy who said he’d kill my son and feed him to me. What exactly is wrong with you?

              • I have denied doing nothing that I have actually done. I have not insulted you, I have simply called you out on your conduct. When I call you a liar, it is because you lied. When I called you a cowards, it is because you are acting cowardly. When I call you a bully, it is because you are doing exactly that.

                “And now here you are, defending a guy who said he’d kill my son and feed him to me. What exactly is wrong with you?”

                Excuse me? When did I defend anyone who said such a thing? Post the screen shot. Let’s see it. Show me where I defended this guy. Prove it.

          • Now, in the interest of full disclosure, please cite in your article people like myself who brought up counter points to your gun control article, and did so in a civil, mature, rational manner. Make sure the screen shot shows your inability to respond to points made.

            Answer me this, do you want an echo chamber?

            • Chad R. MacDonald on

              You have not done so in a civil manner, sir. Your insults to me have been aplenty. You deserve no more attention, and I will not be party to any more of your games. I think you’re just angry because you aren’t seeing your name in the piece. And you never will.

              Have a nice day

                • Chad R. MacDonald on

                  Really? Because you sure got up in a huff when I did same to you.

                  I have not lied, you have. We’re done.

                  This is only turning into “No, YOU shut up” regardless. I have seen you derail enough threads with that tactic already.

                  (Buckey: “When? Show me the screenshot! Tell me how I’m wrong! Pay attention to me! PLEASE!)

                  No, Robert, I have a life. This will never stop. You’re going to rail against me regardless of whether or not I engage you, so I won’t bother expending any more effort. You can go back to talking to yourself.

                  Thanks for fully illustrating why you aren’t worth the time.

                  • “And now here you are, defending a guy who said he’d kill my son and feed him to me. What exactly is wrong with you?”

                    Well? Where did I defend this person? You made the accusation, back it up. Otherwise, you are lying.

                    • Chad R. MacDonald on

                      Did you not call this an inflammatory piece? It was meant to expose the lunatic fringe of gun owners who think it’s okay to harass and bully others with different opinions.

                      By going into direct attack mode on me without ever condemning death threats against myself or my son, you are taking sides with those that did.

                      I love how this guy says I’m writing “inflammatory” pieces about those guys who are just telling me they’d like to feed me my dead son.

                      You need to back up, Robert, and take a good look at the specific faction of people I am opposing with this article. Gun nut pages send waves of trolls to bully those who’s opinions they don’t like. I wrote this knowing they would probably be silly enough to do it to me. You call that cowardly do you? I’m facing down a swarm by myself, while you snipe at me from the sides.

                      You don’t condemn these people? You’re defending them. If you do, you are just a big a monster as the individuals I have displayed here.

                      Now, enough. I’ve got family time to spend. Good night.

                    • Oh no, Chad, you are not wiggling out that easily. Show me where I, me, Robert Buckey, defended anyone, and name the person in question, who talked about killing your son.

                      Let’s see it, liar.

  26. Roger V. Tranfaglia on

    Yup I’m the big bad gun troll, I have mutiple “handles” ( so many that I’ve lost count!) I’ve attacked anyone and every one (,for and against the 2nd admendment) since the internet began. I’ve been blamed for all sorts of horrible things from trolling to animal abuse to even rape and murder. Weird thing about it…. I don’t even own a gun! But hey lets not THAT get in everybodys way way….
    Theres twits on both sides of the argument, and sometimes they turn upon thier own kind….yup I know …..its ALL my fault BTW that is my real name…. Perverted Justice (.com) can confirm that.

  27. Chad, what does “security professional” mean? Where were you employed and what was your job position?

    Your article was very one sided and reveals your true nature as a “troll”- talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

    • Logicus Prime on

      Just a wild guess, but “former security professional, veteran of the hospitality industry” sounds like a bouncer.

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      Yeah, it was one-sided if you consider it was meant to expose the faction of gun owners that are into bullying tactics, especially if sent in groups by pages. If that’s not you, then don’t worry about.

      Go ahead and post your job history here before you can expect me to post mine. I expected this piece to bring on the crazies, and it has certainly met those expectations.

      • Fair to say your most ardent of advocates are bullies.

        You know, because they are on the “front line, hacking it out” and “earning their stripes.”

        I seem to remember a facebook page called “Gun nuts are terrorist pedophiles” and just about every last one of them will accuse you of compensating for the size of your manhood within 2 replies if they don’t outright ban you for presenting a dissenting opinion.

        Get your own house in order before you start talking about anyone else’s “trolls.” If gun control is such a reasonable and noble cause, one would think you could present the argument without publishing the names and addresses of gun owners, accuse them of compensating for their manhood, and be able to argue against self-defense without falsely equating it with murder.

        I mean, Ghandi doesn’t even agree with that sentiment.

        • Chad R. MacDonald on

          Sure, “Anonymous,” because you are so brave to not even post your real name.

          Why, because you’re afraid of death threats or something? Just look at some of your colleagues’ comments, chickenshit, apparently, death threats are cool and don’t mean anything.

          Hey, other gun bullies, straighten out your wayward troll here.

  28. The mentality of trolls is universal, whether the debate is guns, vaccinations, legalizing marijuana or ritualistic sacrifice, it doesn’t matter. You will have those for the topic at hand, those against it, and those that just like to be nasty and stir up trouble no matter what they *actually* think about the discussion. “Crazy” is spread across all plains, in varying forms and degrees. It isn’t new, and it isn’t going away. The one constant I can attest to is, the more you feed the trolls, the more they come around.

  29. Just to harp on the facts portion. MDA has blocked me for correcting them on one of the so called facts they present. And upon reading the comments of the page it is a self fuled cyclone of lies and ignorance. But disregard that little tidbit. They perpetuate with blatant inaccurate information, for example the Jack-in-the-box photo. they claimed that the employees ran and hid and where too scared to call the cops, yet a picture with gun carrying men next to the facility manager with a cook in the back was referenced in the same post. I am sorry but if something/someone scares me to that degree I don’t take a picture.

    Before you write another hate article do research on both sides. Please go and read any article from either side and see who is more violent

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      Uh-huh. Please refer to the death threats posted against myself and my infant son. MDA is not threatening to kill and feed your children to you, are they?

      • I’ve never seen the death threats posted against you and your son. For all I know it’s fantasy. What I do see is you excusing your own bad behavior by screaming, “BULLY!”

        You’re a New Yorker by choice, I’m no longer a New Yorker by choice. Part of me choosing to move out of New York was that I as a law abiding citizen could not own a gun legally without jumping through hoops and even then, it was impossible. I choose to live in a state that values the freedoms protected by the Constitution. You do not.

        By calling people bullies for putting up a different view point than yours shows who the bully really is and as a result you are inflammatory to the point of obnoxiousness.

        The MDA is not what you think it is, but then again if you were a citizen I bet you would have voted for Bloomberg. Even that last time he ran illegally.

        • Chad R. MacDonald on

          The death threats against my son and I are in screenshots in the article. Everything else you say has nothing to do with what I have written.

  30. WTF are you to determine who is responsible enough to own a firearm? Ever read this little thing called the Constitution? You talk a good game, but I am sure you will be hiding in your house pissing your panties when it comes time to knock on doors and disarm the law abiding citizens you think “aren’t responsible enough”. You will leave that to the jack boot thugs who will be coming for your rights right after they come for our guns thanks to the colossal stupidity of you and your gun phobic ilk. Moron. Fortunately your fantasy of gun confiscation is easier said than done, and those to who that job will fall are not only too faithful to their oaths to help you in your socialist agenda, but also not as foolish as you are to believe that will ever allow it.

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      As you seem to be putting words into my mouth that I have not written, go check if you like, I would recommend those considered responsible enough to own and operate firearms display more reading comprehension than you just displayed, and far more emotional control as well.

  31. I am a police officer and I find this post funny. I have been banned from most of the larger citizen control pages, MDA, ect for simply posting that I am a police officer and pointing out that something they posted was factually incorrect, such as the misguided guns should be trested like cars analogy which makes completely no sense.

    From my observations on FB the citizen control advocates are the bullies far more often than citizen rights advocates.

    Gun control advocates intentionally lie repeatedly and rarely, if ever present any gun safety tips other than confiscation, and then claim “no one is coming after your guns.” Yes they are, the laws that they supportd, the NY SAFE act and Feinsteins ASW ban legislation were exactly that, confiscation. They are the liars and the bullies because they are advocating the govt breaking into our homes and taking our stuff. Isnt that what bullies do?

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      Someone else claiming I wrote things I didn’t and implying I am a liar as well, even with screenshots posted. If you really are a police officer, sir, you should know better.

      • Actually he didn’t once say anything about you specifically. Perhaps you should take your own advice in an earlier post. And brush up on your reading comprehension ….

        • Chad R. MacDonald on

          No, he simply employed false equivalencies, semantics, and pivots in order to demean the point of my article. And we all know it.

          That implies that I am right to receive the bullying only some of which is illustrated here.

          You DO know the point of this piece was to draw out those who think piling on one person opposing your opinion is peachy keen? The point here was to put names on more bullies.

          You walked into a troll trap. You didn’t know?

          • Actually yes I did realize what you were doing. Just like the newsman that reports on the most controversial story to the exclusion of reporting a legit news story because it raises his “Q” numbers. You simply posted an inflammatory article hoping to get a response from the “1%ers” so you could use those responses to further your personal agenda. As for the “trap” you set, you do realize that most of your condescending responses to the legitimate rebuttals of your article,are in fact nothing more than “troll” responses minus the violent content of some you received. But are bullying tactics none the less.

            • Chad R. MacDonald on

              LOL! Keep defending them, David. If you’re so clear on my motivation here, maybe you should stop adding fuel to the fire, hmm?

              • Actually I speak for no one but myself. Nor do I defend other’s actions,good,bad,or indifferent. I simply wanted to have a civil discussion about gun control with someone on the opposite side of the issue. However in reading your article and the comments here I realized that wasn’t your motivating factor So I decided to lower my debating skills to the level presented. You see,I sometimes become bored and enjoy a debate of any kind. And you were available. However this has become boring as well, so I shall seek out others that are more interested in debating real issues, so I can learn from their thought process and perhaps share my own. You see I begrudge no one their opinions, I do however request they have legitimate reasons for them. I sincerely hope you write something of substance regarding your opinion on the in the future, perhaps we can learn from each other

  32. Not to dismiss the threats and wishing of harm, because it is wrong, and should be called out whenever it happens, but please spend a few minutes reading some of the comments on pages like Moms Demand Action, where they wish for OUR children to be shot. For our lives to be ruined. You make the point specifically about “gun trolls” and absolutely there are those who take it farther than they should, however the reality is that it’s trolls in general. YOU see the pro-gun trolls come after you, and wish harm on you. WE see the ANTI-gun trolls coma after us. They wish horrible things on us, and I have even seen a few that have taken it as far(if not farther) than anything you have described here. And honestly, if you want an honest debate on firearms, you’re better off going to a pro-gun site than an anti-gun site. The anti-gun sites delete and block anyone who makes any kind of positive gun statement. Go on, just post one positive thing about not needing stricter firearms laws on the Mom’s Demand Action page. You will be blocked in less than 10 minutes.

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      Considering the amount of hateful tweets, messages, comments, and rhetoric I have experienced for daring to voice my opinion, I don’t blame MDA at all for blocking those they aren’t sure about. I do now too, I have to just because of the sheer amount, and I am not even close to as high a profile as they are.

      This piece is meant to expose those who would make death threats against people with opinions different than their own, and also show who would defend them. When you’re serious about not dismissing threats of harm, don’t then dismiss same later in the same comment.

      Have a nice day.

      • I don’t believe I did dismiss them. In fact, I stated that it is wrong, and that both sides have those that take things absolutely too far. You make it out as if it’s only anti-gun commenters that get death threats. Quite frankly, that is not true. And While I am sure you may get quite a few, I’d bet dollars to donuts that if we looked at the inbox of Wayne La Pierre, you’d probably curl up into a ball and think more people need to be locked away in mental institutions.

        • Chad R. MacDonald on

          Oh, okay, the guy who said video games are to blame for Sandy Hook has got to be stressing, so it’s absolutely fine to pick on Moms who lost their children to maniacs and tell me I going to be fed the remains of my dead son?

          What exactly is wrong with you, that you would say this? You know this piece is meant to draw out who would defend that shit right? Did you not realize this is a troll trap?

  33. You were doing pretty well until this little bit…. “Their members (Opoen Carry Texad)show up, armed to the teeth, to display weapons to four women having lunch”

    First, armed to the teeth is just colorful hyperbole. Second, it was a public space. Third, the group is called OPEN CARRY. Of course you are going to see their guns. Seeing their guns does not mean they are showing them to you or threatening you with them.

    Did you ever consider you and your condescending attitudes toward gun owners might be why you have so many so-called trolls in your comment sections?

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      Cool. So someone says they want to empty a clip (their words, someone has already erroneously gone after me for not using ‘magazine’) into my face and your big issue is you didn’t like how I worded something?

      And then to say I have a condescending attitude after that. Wow.

      I’d ask if you can see the problems with what you’re saying, but I won’t hold my breath.

      • henchmannumber2 on

        “…I’d ask if you can see the problems with what you’re saying, but I won’t hold my breath.”

        Like I said, a condescending attitude towards gun owners. Even more so for those who don’t agree with you.

        • Chad R. MacDonald on

          Sure, if you’re gonna pull attitude with me, expect it back.

          Either way, thanks for validating my points.

  34. Pingback: Storm of Gun Trolls: The Bully Offense : Quiet Mike | Texas Gun Rights

  35. Chad R. MacDonald on

    The missing ingredient to this piece, which criticizes those who would send waves of trolls to attempt to bully someone with an opinion different than theirs, was for a page to actually do that.

    Big thanks to The Truth About Guns for doing just that, validating my points, and putting people on display here to illustrate what I’m talking about. You folks have fun defending why I am not entitled to my opinion but a guy who threatens to kill, dismember, and feed an infant to his parent is.

    Have a nice day.

      • Of course we did. Considering MDA followers and “personal friends of Shannon Watts” not only persistently called our site owner’s wife & employer in an effort to have her fired, then attempted to get a former admin’s child released from school early but then went on to plan to go after the children of one of our posters who was married to a firearm related TV personality and you show unwavering support for people who would send heavily armed people in APCs to our homes to kick in our doors, seize our lawfully purchased property, slap around our family and kill our dogs if we do not submit to their will.

        Yup. We’re bullies for posting memes but going after wives and children not via a Facebook post but offline in real life is hunky-dory. Totally logical position.

        • Chad R. MacDonald on

          I’ve seen your page post straight up lies. I liked that whole “Moms Deman” with no “D” fake twitter profile you assholes made up to smear her further. Oh, did you think nobody would call you on your bullshit?

          But hey, as you said on your page linking this piece to send your swarm of trolls “Mithras” thanks for the page views! I didn’t link you,but you linked me! And you helped me with the easiest follow up ever!

          Too chickenshit to post your real name and photo, huh, “Mithras?”

          You want Hypocrisy and Stupidity, Mithras, look in the mirror. I just played you and your bully horde of gun trolls like a fiddle.

    • No-one said anything about you not being “entitled to an opinion”. Which is NOT the same thing as being immune to rebuttal and critique and opprobrium. Which you clearly were baiting for. Have fun with that, eh?

      • Chad R. MacDonald on

        LOTS of people have said I’m not entitled to my opinion. That’s one of the central points of the piece.

        And yes, it is also meant as troll bait. Thanks for taking it, along with all the others.

  36. D.G. Dillman on

    Mr MacDonald, you seem to relate a person going about their lawful affairs, and exercising their rights as being somehow threatening to you, and an extremist thing to do. Your arguments in this article don’t seem to make any sense, other than that internet trolls are bad…but with your illogic on the gun rights issue, aren’t you yourself the troll?

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      Which part of threatening to kill, dismember, and feed an infant to it’s parent sounds like a citizen going about lawful affairs to you? My arguments don’t make sense to you, because you have clearly read something other than what’s written here.

      • If someone is actually threatened then they should get the Police involved. If that hasn’t been done then I think that either the “threats” were made up or massively exaggerated.

        • Chad R. MacDonald on

          The screenshots are sitting there in the piece, and Davis Marchus was reported to the police. Thanks for asking.

      • Oh good Lord, Chad. Stop throwing your kid up and using him to avoid answering a question head on.

  37. Mr. Antisocial Guy on

    The only difference between the U.S.A. and Iran is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. How about a “constructive” proposal to get illegal guns out of the hands of criminals instead of limiting the legal owners. Why even bring up the “possibility” of a future mental illness that probably won’t happen. You just want to cast doubt on all gun owners to get rid of their guns like all the other anti-gun progressives. Just remember if they take away our 2nd Amendment rights from us, your 1st Amendment rights will soon follow.

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      None of this comment is applicable to anything I have written. You are forming my words to something else entirely.

      As for your “criminals” talking point, I dealt with that in the first firearms piece I wrote, it’s linked in the article above.

  38. You don’t realize it, but your comments are as ignorant, and as offensive to millions of people, as Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments. You know as much about guns, and gun owners, as conservative republicans know about the LGBT community.

    I’m sure Rush, and Glenn Beck get “trolled” too. Talk out your ass, and people are gonna be pissed. That’s all there is to it…

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      According to the Google Analytics account tracking where all these comments are coming from, I seem to have offended a few thousand people in Texas, Arizona, and Florida. All of whom subscribe to the very gun bully pages I wanted to call out and expose.

      And if you don’t support people making death threats against those for speaking out against gun lobbies then you have no reason to be offended.

  39. You operate under the presumption that fundamental rights are up for debate and modification.

    They are not. There are certain things that are not now and never will be up for modification; they are the First Principles upon which the people’s individual liberty depends.

    Understanding human nature and natural law is essential to comprehend First Principles AND what you perceive to be extremism and recalcitrance on the part of “gun lobbies”. There can be no compromise on the fundamental design features that define true liberty. Such ostensible compromise never expands liberty, it always works to its detriment. The so-called “gun lobbies” are representative of Americans who refuse to be buffaloed and herded by Wilsonian progressives into the figurative (and eventually, literal) cattle cars.

    The employment of this tactic is called incrementalism (effected by the Hegelian Dialectic) and it is the tool by which philosophical enemies of American liberty mean to “fundamentally transform” this country from a free and independent republic to a collectivist centralized oligarchy.

    It is, literally, war. War on the people’s individual liberty. As of this moment, it is still being waged at the ballot boxes and in the legislatures of this nation. Thank God for that.

    But ignoring or revising the self-evident truth that the people’s right to arms is the backstop and failsafe against this attack identifies one as either a progressive perpetrator or an unthinking useful idiot.

    Which are you, Chad….?

  40. “Quiet [But Loud! Mike”:
    “Bullies need to be opposed.”

    Seems you yourself are a bully with an agenda, and you oppose any opposition to your own bullying.

    I’ve met your type before: you present as valid ‘evidence’ that isn’t; you attack anyone who has an opposing viewpoint; you suffer no one to oppose you; you ignore any evidence to contrary. You have an agenda, perhaps a paid agenda.

    Like anti-gun and loon-blogger mikeb32000, a United Nations employee pushing the UN’s anti-gun agenda, from his office in Italy.

    That you, Quiet Mike?

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      Ah, “Quiet Mike” is the name of this website. There are many authors. What you did is equivalent to raging against “Mr. Blaze” at The Blaze. For future reference, I wrote this piece.

      So, you know, if you’re going to be walking into a troll trap like this article and attempt to troll without checking out your target, it’s your own fault when it blows up in your face.

      Continue with linking random comments from wherever, making wild accusations, and condemning people for incorrect evidence when you can’t even get the writer straight.

      I depended upon trolls like you to come in and illustrate how ridiculous their assertions are, so you’re doing a bang up job there. Thanks for representing the Alex Jones/UN conspiracy batshittery.

      Carry on. The rest of us will step over you like manure in the road.

  41. When you spew hate you should expect hate to return to you Chris, when it comes to guns ,gun haters call law abiding gun owners every name in the book and you sir are no different

  42. Chris Brooks on

    What a pathetic person you are, very typical of the left.
    It was you people who declared war on gun owners, fighting back doesn’t make someone a bully. In fact people like you have been using pop culture and politics to bully gun owners for many years. If you don’t like being wrapped up in a nasty fight so start one. I can speak for most gun owners when I say we’ed rather do something else ourselves.

  43. I thoroughly enjoy how a few people “bully” you and then all 2nd Amendment supporters are “gun trolls”. I wonder if that same leap of logic applies to all Muslims being fanatics and killers after 9/11 since only a small section took part or cheered the results? Or are all Catholics child molesters since a small section of the faith took part in child abuse? Or are all the Hispanics in the US illegals since a portion of them are? Or are all Blacks rioters and looters since a small percentage of them took part in the Detroit Riots of 1967 or the Los Angeles Riots of 1992? I guess that it’s fun and easy to lump people in a giant mass and see them as an homogenous blob.

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      It was made pretty clear that I was talking about a small faction and not everyone. It was stated a couple different times in a couple different ways. So what you’re accusing me of is blatantly false.

      • Texas TopCat on

        It seemed to me reading your article that you attacked all of the NRA and OCT by your comments. Certainly, you did not give a balanced view, And where was the outcry against the MIAG, MDA and Brady groups for their under handed tactics and distortion of the truth? What about the threats against Shannon Watts that were proven to come of one of her other accounts that got so much press? How much of your attacks were false flag actions?

        • Chad R. MacDonald on

          Wow. See folks? That’s why you ignore trolls.

          Pivot. False equivalency. Semantics.

          All after completely missing the point.

          Have a nice day.

      • You stated, “This is not to say all gun owners are gun trolls. Of course they’re not. Responsible gun owners aren’t the issue.” And then claim in your response that you were only talking about a “small fraction.” So not all gun owners are gun trolls, just a small fraction. So we’re talking what 1%? 25%? 49%? More? You talk about those irresponsible gun owners refusing to compromise or see the issue from a common sense standpoint. Being that to the anti-gun crowd “common sense” doesn’t involve anything remotely pragmatic or approaching comprehension in relation to the actual goings on of people outside of a theoretical environment and “compromise” means the Pro-gun crowd gives 90% while the anti- crowd complains of their 10% sacrifice, my guess is that your “small fraction” is a fairly large number.

          • You’re the one with the article. I’m just a faceless commenter who’s interested in how big your “small fraction” of the gun owning community actually is. My guess is that the true “gun troll” number (Trust me there are plenty of assholes that own guns that I would rather they remain quiet too.) is something along the lines of 3-5% of the total Pro-gun community while I can only guess that to you the number is much higher.

  44. Texas TopCat on

    The attacks on John Lott and his peer reviewed work is way out of line. For the most part all of his work has been found by “unbiased” sources to be sound and useful. And at the same time you seem to accept the “work” of groups that have an agenda as truthful. Sorry, but you are exactly wrong.
    Bloomberg Makes Up Data

    VPC delusions
    More Guns – Less Crime – crime or more guns fewer victims?,-less-crime-or-more-guns,-fewer-victims?/

    CC saves lives, AWB has no effect

    Guns stop crime xx million times a year (CDC Report)
    (Addtional stats)

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      BA HA HA HA HA!

      All of this tracks back to Lott himself, his organization, his colleagues, or to reviews published before it was revealed his research was fraudulent. Just like I said it would!

      Not even a nice try, unless you were just trying to prove my point.

  45. Logicus Prime on

    “Don’t “Second Amendment” me, either. I dealt with all gun troll talking points here.”

    Sorry Chad, not even close. Your silence in response to substantive refutation of that post was deafening.

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      “Ignore trolls. Block them. They aren’t going to discuss a damn thing.”

      That’s the only statement applying to you, LP. Your bullshit cherry-picking of the hyper-linked article wasn’t worth a response then, and it’s not worth one now. Other than the spelling mistake you caught. That’s why I only responded to that.

      You are just one more troll. You aren’t helping anything. Take a good look at who’s on your side, a guy who wants to kill an infant and feed it to his parent. That’s the guy on your side. Go ahead, defend him.

      You deserve no more attention, ever.

      Have a nice day.

      • Logicus Prime on

        “Your bullshit cherry-picking of the hyper-linked article wasn’t worth a response then, and it’s not worth one now.”

        The only basis you have for accusing me of cherry-picking is that I stopped because I was tired of writing. I could have written a lot more to refute your post.

        “You are just one more troll.”

        You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

        Chad, contrary to what you apparently believe, a troll is NOT someone who disagrees with you. Name-calling, on the other hand, is a frequent tactic of those who have no better argument, but I suspect you’re aware of that. It’s also an example of the Personal Attack logical fallacy.

        “Take a good look at who’s on your side, a guy who wants to kill an infant and feed it to his parent. That’s the guy on your side. Go ahead, defend him.”

        An excellent example of the Guilt by Association logical fallacy. I’m on the side of the 2nd Amendment and the ability to defend myself and mine whenever and wherever it may be necessary. I can’t control what anyone else does and I won’t defend that guy. You’re making another completely unwarranted assumption.

        “You deserve no more attention, ever.

        “Have a nice day.”

        Chad, you really need to make up your mind. First you tell me that I deserve no more attention and then you immediately contradict yourself by wishing me a nice day. That’s really funny. I couldn’t have come up with a better example of your sloppy thinking.

        • Chad just got you to admit you’re a stalker obsessed with trolling him while you hide behind a fake profile. You sure could be the dude sending him threatening messages.

          • Logicus Prime on

            “Chad just got you to admit you’re a stalker obsessed with trolling him”

            You’re going to have to explain how you came to that conclusion, if you can.

            “while you hide behind a fake profile.”

            It’s a handle. Look it up. Try Google.

            “You sure could be the dude sending him threatening messages.”

            Jump to conclusions much? Threats are for those who can’t form a reasoned argument. I believe I can win an argument if my opponent is intellectually honest and rational, which apparently removes you from consideration.

  46. I’m sorry, i can’t even take you seriously. There is zero compromise from anyone, nut just pro-gun advocates. you seem to think all the anger and hostility you experience to the gun issue. When really its the symptoms of a large group of people sick to death of the government intervening in their lives in any way, be it guns or health care.

    Background checks sound all well and good, and certainly private citizens should have access to it for their own benefit when selling a gun. But in the end requiring people to do background checks will only create a bunch of new criminals who otherwise are upstanding citizens. An example of such is what happened Connecticut. All they managed to do was create an unenforceable law and thousands of new “felons”.

    As for the idea of “you need to prove you are responsible enough for a gun” who exactly gets to determine what the criteria are? sure there are a lot of people who really shouldn’t have a gun. But i have a feeling if such decisions were made by liberals the criteria would not only be overly restrictive but utterly absurd.

    • Chad R. MacDonald on

      Let’s make this simple for you to understand; when you have people threatening to dismember and feed you your only child because you say something they don’t like, then I will take YOU seriously. Right now, you are only coming off as willingly ignorant.

      This is a tiny fraction of the horror that gun trolls tried to instill in me. And I got off lucky compared to writers with a larger following. If you defend them by trivializing what they did to me, then you are just as fucking bad as they are.

      No. People who threaten to kill and feed infants to their parents shouldn’t own guns. Start there.

      There is no way you would make this comment to my face. Use that as a gauge for the next time you want to say something as awful as you just did.

      • so tell me, with all these threats that happen so often, has anything ever happened? ever? can you even give me one example to justify your fears (since you know, their just trigger happy gun nuts). I mean if their so unhinged as you suggest then it shouldn’t be so hard.

        I feel for you, i do. however my main point (which has nothing to do with trivializing death threats) is that you try to make it out as if pro-gun advocates are the ones to blame for any lack of progress and an unwillingness to compromise. Gun control advocates have not seeded one inch in this debate. i could literally take a list of proposed laws from 4 years ago and it would be literally the same if not more compromising than one from now. so why exactly should pro-gun people even consider compromise in the slightest? merely for your own comfort? Does that make death threats ok even remotely? no it does not. There are easier and more effective ways to win the battle.

        see i prefer just to sit back and watch as northern states pass more gun control causing gun manufactures to move south where they are relaxing laws. Thats a good model the way i see it. all the northern states lose all the special contracts for guns with law enforcement and the south gets their guns made closer to home. I mean i see it as a win win.

    • @ijaatmeerel: Let me get this right: You read a sampling of the responses this writer got and you “can’t…take…seriously” his concern not only for the safety of his family but the safety of all those who publicly take positions in opposition to those who oppose virtually any gun control? Is that what you’re saying? Better, is that what you’re seriously saying?

      Worse, you seem to be saying that you “can’t…take…seriously” his concern because “really its [sic] the symptoms of a large group of people sick to death of the government intervening in their lives in any way, be it guns or health care.”

      Let me help you with something, Sparky! This is a country of laws, founded on a Constitution that serves as the basis not only for those laws but also for the way in which they may or may not be both enacted and enforced. That same Constitution then provides for a system of governance by which those laws are or are not enacted and enforced according to the common good.

      I have served in four countries where there was either no credible government or where the government was so weak that it could not intervene, as you put it, “in any way.” Indeed, I was there, in each instance, because there was no government to intervene, as you put it, “in any way.” Had you seen what I saw, you would be thankful for “government intervention.”

      If that’s what you’re looking for, I think I might be willing to spring for a one-way ticket to, say, Somalia, for you. When you get there, let us know what’s it’s like to live in a state that has utterly failed for lack of a government that intervenes in the lives of its people on behalf of the common good.

      And don’t try that “government intervention is a matter of degree” stuff out on me. No single group is using governmental means to infringe on our civil liberties, on the rights, guarantees and protections afforded us by the United States Constitution, and on our most basic private freedoms than the American Right. Be it the right to equal access to the ballot, the right of workers to organize and engage in collective bargaining, the right of a woman to make her own choices about her own body, the right of university/college professors/students to engage in free and unfettered inquiry, the right to be free from coercive religious practices of any sort, the right to equal access under the law, and on and on and on and on and on, the American Right is slowly but surely putting the flame to that way of life that, to a great degree, defined us as Americans.

      To read your rant protesting the government intervening “in any way” only tells me how little you know of American history, American governance, American jurisprudence, and what’s happening to this country right now. It also tells me how little you know about the rest of the world.

      Let me know when you want to get your itinerary together for Mogambishu.

      • yea im not even going to waste time tearing this apart in a constructive manner. The moment i see phrases like “common good” and”we are a nation of laws” its like a bell ringer for a Cool-aid liberal.

        The reason I’m not going to waste any time commenting on your points is because im trying really hard here to be civil and constructive here and that would be nearly impossible if i took the time to refute your ideas.

        • The reason you’re “not even going to waste time tearing this apart” is because you can’t and lack the character to admit it. The reason you’re “not going to waste any time commenting on [my] points” is because you can’t “refute” them and lack the character to admit it.

          Having read your posts in this thread, I find it hard to imagine that “civil” discussion/debate is something with which you’re familiar and even harder to imagine that being “constructive” is one of your strong points.

          When phrases like “the common good” and “a nation of laws” are derided as being ideological instead of lauded as being foundational elements of our democracy, we have arrived at a sad place in our country’s history. And the same is the case when internet posters become so frustrated at their inability to rebut opposing arguments that they forget how to spell Kool-Aid.

          • yea, you prove your ineptitude by calling what we have a democracy. which is why im not going to waste time refuting your points, trust me its very easy to do.

            as for being constructive, i actually had a very good conversation with someone who was for more gun control. we both made good points and came up with reasonable solutions we could both agree with, including creating a comprehensive gun safety and operation program for schools that would cover not only the use of but also the science and mechanics behind guns.

        • “Common sense” to an anti-gun zealot means do it my way and only my way because even though we have never met, and probably never will, I know what is best for you. And “Compromise” to an anti-gun zealot means you give 90% and then the anti-gun folks complain about the 10% of their “sacrifice”.

  47. The picture you paint of your own experience is really kind of scary. While the internet does, to some degree, grant anonymity to both writers and respondents, that anonymity seems to be dissolving at light speed. One does wonder how long it will be before those who, for the moment, confine their pathological rants to message boards find that simple articulation no longer satisfies their need to somehow strike back at the imaginary sources of their rage, resentment and bitterness—it’s not about guns, it’s about people who feel powerless and whose feelings of powerlessness have been validated and manipulated by the NRA and, for that matter, every aggressive right-wing group of which I am aware.

    It is, after all, not a thoughtful, reflective movement. It is reflexive and it is visceral. Hence, there is no reason in many of its positions and there is no reasoning about that with its adherents. Which is why climate science deniers can look you in the face and tell you that you’re wrong and the evidence doesn’t matter. Which is why #BENGHAZI!!! Which is why IRS!!! Which is why simple background checks per gun purchases mean “They’re coming to take our guns away.” And on and on and on.

    My brothers and I grew up hunting with my dad and my grandfather and have continued to hunt throughout our adult lives. We grew up around guns and still own them—though a couple of handguns (mostly to shoot water moccasins), a couple of shotguns, a 30.06 and a .22 rifle have always seemed to us quite adequate for anyone who hunts in the south.

    I remember being an NRA member as a teenager, as was my dad and brothers. But, not longer before he died—far too young—in the 70’s, my dad told us he would never again send a nickel to them. Where once they had done little other than promote gun safety—and done so very well, I might add—and conservation, they had sold out to weapons manufacturers and begun to radicalize. My dad had no use for that nonsense and, as it turned out, neither did my brothers nor me. As it turned out, he was right about where the NRA was headed and why it was headed that way.

    There are a lot of us out here who are hunters or gun collectors or just gun owners (for home protection, to shoot snakes here on the river or whatever) but just shake our heads at the gun nuts. There are a lot of us who would applaud more stringent gun control laws—we know they wouldn’t affect us a bit and we know they could only be positive for our society/culture as a whole. But there aren’t enough of us to overcome the crazies.

    Stay safe.

    • Texas TopCat on

      “manipulated by the NRA” – not true. The NRA represents its dues paying members and the biggest concern of the 5 million members is that the NRA is too meek. In fact the NRA is the oldest and most respected civil rights organization in the US. They and the NSSF are about the only national organizations that are actually taking actions to make society and gun usage safer. None of the accidents with guns would happen if the people knew and followed the NRA safety rules. But of course, the NRA gun safety classes that should be in every school in the country are missing from many schools, why is that?

      • george jetson on

        Two points: Where does the majority of the funding for the NRA come from?
        It’s NOT from dues paying members.
        Gun Safety classes in schools?!!
        What could possibly go wrong?!!

      • While I appreciate your reply, to imagine that I will disavow the obvious—that the NRA manipulates/plays on the feelings of powerlessness being experienced by a particular demographic (I don’t need to spell it out for you, do I?)—because you say it isn’t so is to engage in magical thinking. Not a chance—it’s not even open for debate among thinking people able to see the NRA, its actions and its primary funding for what they are.

        Too meek? If it was any more aggressive, my neighbor would have a .50 caliber machine gun on his front porch, a howitzer on his front lawn and a tank in his driveway. What a joke! The “most respected civil rights organization in the U.S.?” Here’s a suggestion: Don’t try that line out when in the presence of people who use polysyllabic words and compound sentences—no one likes getting laughed at.

        The NRA is no longer in any way associated by the general public with gun safety. Once, when they were primarily about gun safety and conservation, they were known for it and were respected for it. Now, they’re not and they command the respect of nothing more than what has become almost a cult following. Sorry, they’re not what they once were.

        The NRA cut its own throat per “gun safety classes” in public schools. No one with intact critical thinking faculties wants an organization that is primarily responsible for the fact that this country is “awash in guns”—compared to the rest of the developed world, we are an outlier—having anything to do with students in public schools.

        If the NRA wants to regain credibility such that it might not be laughed at when it talks about promoting “gun safety,” a good first step would be for it to stop promoting the sale of high-powered weaponry that kids are using to kill other kids. A good second step would be for it to stop opposing every single effort that communities make to lessen the flow of guns into their neighborhoods—guns that are used by kids to kill other kids.

        • “The NRA is no longer in any way associated by the general public with gun safety.”
          They’ve been doing the Eddie the Eagle program since 1988 and yet the liberal media would have you believe that gun safety is a new element of the NRA’s public message.

          “If the NRA wants to regain credibility such that it might not be laughed at when it talks about promoting “gun safety,” a good first step would be for it to stop promoting the sale of high-powered weaponry that kids are using to kill other kids.”
          Exactly what are these NRA approved “kid killers”? I must have missed their ad spot that promotes the killing of a child or of anyone for that matter.

          • The NRA has been doing gun safety programs that date far back beyond 1988. As I said in an earlier post, my brothers and I took part in NRA gun safety programs when we were teenagers in the 1960’s. Nowhere have I implied and nowhere have I seen it implied in the media that NRA “gun safety” workshops are anything new.

            But there was a time when the NRA was primarily about gun safety and conservation measures for hunters like us. They were associated by the public with “gun safety.” If you think they still are, you might want to stop reading Guns & Ammo and start reading material that reflects the thinking of the general public. It does not associate the NRA with “gun safety” anymore and there are zero surveys and zero polls that come close to calling that into question.

            Did I write that the NRA was running ads promoting the killing of children “or of anyone?” Did I? Man up and admit that your insinuation was a lie. Man. Up.

            And, yes, the NRA promotes the sale of high-powered weaponry—some of it used by kids to kill other kids—every time it opposes any kind of restrictive measure per a type of weapon, a type of ammo, registries or background checks. Yes, it does. And it does so not on your behalf—you’re just a pawn!—but on behalf of weapons manufacturers, whose profits are the primary interest of the NRA.

            You? To them, you’re just a fool who writes them checks, insures profits for the manufacturers and believes their fear-mongering about “they’re coming to get your guns.”

            Show up some time to go hunting with my buddies and me and try out that NRA riff on us. After we kick you out of the truck, you’ll hear us laughing at you as we drive off. We don’t suffer fools gladly—they’ll ruin a good day in the woods.

            • So I’m a fool for sending my money to the NRA, the GOA, JPFO, and my state based grassroots Pro-gun organization. Where would my money be better spent? Send it to Bloomberg or Moms Demand and ask them nicely to quit shitting on my rights. Where would you recommend my Pro-gun money go to?

    • Texas TopCat on

      “we know they wouldn’t affect us a bit and we know they could only be positive for our society/culture as a whole.” well it sounds good, unfortunately it is not true.
      When government confiscates assault weapons and makes criminals of their owners, you will sit back and claim that is not my problem.
      When government confiscates semi-automatic handguns, you will sit bac and claim that is not my problem.
      When the government confiscates all handguns, you sit back and claim that is not my problem.
      When the government confiscates your gun and makes you a criminal, will there be anyone to stand up for you?
      Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.”
      Sara Brady
      Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
      The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3
      This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
      Adolph Hitler
      Chancellor, Germany, 1933
      Warning from Canada
      No One wants to take your gun

    • Just a quick question: If you don’t believe that a simple background check would be the equivalent to going after guns, would you be willing to require the same at the time of voting?

      • Do you seriously not see the difference between gun ownership and voting? I mean, seriously! It’s a false equivalency that’s been tried out as a talking point and has failed every time. Lose it.

        And, no, a simple background check—or, for that matter, a gun registry—is not “the equivalent to going after guns.” But I’d love to hear your explanation for why it is. And, remember, facts only. No paranoid delusions allowed. No magical thinking allowed.

  48. Social media prove that the fight against background checks and other cautionary and safety measures is not entirely ideological. Without exaggerating, we see proof daily of a high rate of psychiatric unfitness among, at least, the most vocal gun enthusiasts.

  49. That POS John Lott looks insane. I’ll bet he was never in the military and , if he was, he probably would have run away from any action. He most likely has a small dick and compensates for it by acting the hero.

    The quote from Mahatma Gandhi brought to mind the fight over climate change.

    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi

    They ignore us, then they have laughed at us, they are now fighting us tooth and nail.
    WE WILL ULTIMATELY WIN and they will be dead when the rest of the planet dies.

    • “He most likely has a small dick and compensates for it by acting the hero.”
      The compensating for small genitals argument is pathetically tired, not the mention sexist. Are women, the largest growing demographic of firearm purchasers, only buying firearms because they desperately wish to have a penis of their own? Pathetic.

    • Texas TopCat on

      Why is it that liberals always have to come back to insults like “POS”, “small dick”, “run away from any action” or race instead of discussing the issues. Maybe the anti-bill of rights side has no facts on their side? This entire article seems to me to be a case of the kettle calling the pot black.

      • george jetson on

        I believe the point of the article was to call out the “gun trolls” to showcase just what a bunch of crazies they are.
        Mission accomplished.

Leave a Reply