January 8, 2012 marked the one-year anniversary of the horrific mass shooting in Tucson, in which a young man, Jared Loughner, killed 6 innocent Americans and wounded 13 others, including U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ). Despite the fact that he was severely mentally ill and a substance abuser, Loughner passed a background check and legally purchased the handgun used in the murders.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence organized a series of “Too Many Victims” candlelight vigils to recognize the anniversary and pay tribute to all Americans who are victims and survivors of gun violence. The staff of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence was proud to attend a vigil in the District of Columbia at Shiloh Baptist Church. It was a moving event that included powerful testimony from gun violence survivors including Colin Goddard (who was shot four times at Virginia Tech), Nardyne Jefferies (who lost her daughter Brishell to AK-47 fire in a horrific mass shooting in southeast D.C.) and William Kellibrew (who was forced to watch as his mother’s ex-boyfriend shot and killed her and his brother). This was just one of the scores of solemn vigils that were occurring that evening in states across the country.
These events were emotional and meaningful to the gun violence survivors and other concerned Americans who participated in them. But to pro-gun activists, they were apparently humorous, something to be mocked and laughed at.
One pro-gun blogger in Massachusetts, Andrew Johnston (AKA “Weer’d Beard”) urged his readers “Do More Than Just Light a Candle” by sending him photos of their guns arrayed around a candle. Johnston explained that he “takes offense” to the term “gun violence.” And he urged those who agree to “[show] what tools you have to back up your desire to prevent violence.” Johnston was so proud of his work that he sent it directly to gun violence survivor Joan Peterson, who lost her sister in a gun homicide involving domestic violence (the comment in question was left on Joan’s blog, “Common Gunsense”). Johnston then blogged to tell Peterson, "We show respect for the victims, you dance in their blood."
Another pro-gun blogger, Jon C. Sullivan of Knoxville, Tennessee (AKA "Linoge"), wrote the following at his blog “Walls of the City”: “By holding their candle-light vigils for ‘victims of ‘gun violence’, the Brady Campaign and their sycophants are, by definition, memorializing those murderers, rapists, thieves, muggers, robbers, home-invaders, and other scumbags who were shot down in self-defense by their intended victims, or by the police in the execution of their duties. As always, ‘gun control’ extremists are aiding, abetting, and sympathizing with criminals. Disgusting.”
Christie Caywood (AKA "Bitterb"), the girlfriend of fellow NRA volunteer election coordinator Keith Milligan of Langhorne, Pennsylvania (AKA "Sebastian"), found the vigils hilarious. Along with Milligan, she co-authors the blog “Shall Not Be Questioned.” On December 19, she mocked the “Too Many Victims” tributes, writing, “Yes, they want you to light a candle. Because candles will stop violence ... If candles can stop bullets, then they can do anything in this season of holiday miracles, right?” On Twitter, she said the following about gun violence prevention activists holding candlelight vigils: "We should report them as arsonists." Caywood and Milligan also shared a laugh about Joan Peterson's loss of her sister to gun violence. Milligan Tweeted that he won a bet with his girlfriend that Peterson would ring a bell instead of lighting a candle at the vigil. He hash-tagged the Tweet #toomanyfools. Milligan was referring to bell-ringing ceremonies held by the group Protect Minnesota, of which Joan is member. Gun violence survivors step forward to ring a bell once for each loved one they have lost to gun violence. Caywood loved it. "I didn't bet against you dear," she Tweeted back.
Milligan also issued the following warning to victims and survivors of gun violence: "Once your grief crosses over into trying to remove my freedoms and shred part of the Bill of Rights you can no longer claim the right to be left alone." "These aren’t people who are just concerned citizens," Milligan declared. "They are hate filled people out to destroy lives. How are these people different from a bigot who would enjoy the idea if a black man got an ass beating because he was visiting Mississippi in 1954, and didn’t know certain fountains weren’t for his kind? I posit they are no different in terms of their corrupt character, only in the form of bigotry they have chosen."
Miguel Gonzalez of Miami, Florida, author of the pro-gun blog “Gun-Free Zone,” described “Too Many Victims” as the “Candlelight Dance Over Corpses.” And as the South Florida Daily Blog and Florida Progressive Coalition Blog pointed out, he published another offensive post in which he attacked Colin Goddard—who was shot four times at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007—for "doing nothing till he got shot" without even identifying him correctly (Andrew Goddard is Colin's father). According to the South Florida Daily Blog, "[Gonzalez] and his minions have become the gun advocates' version of Westboro Baptist Church and have decided that posting callous and inflammatory pictures that are nothing more than gun porn is the best way of delivering their message. Good job, guys ... MLK Day is just around the corner."
Illinois militia member Roy Kubicek (AKA "Thirdpower"), co-author of the blog “Days of Our Trailers,” said that those who participated in the candlelight vigils are “enablers of violent crime, religious and racial bigotry.”
St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner blogger Kurt Hoffman used the Too Many Victims vigils to reiterate his standing threat of armed violence against our government.
Perhaps most offensive, however, was a video posted by pro-gun bloggers Barron Barnett of Washington and Joe Huffman of North Central Idaho. The video shows pro-gun activists holding candles, saying “candles don’t stop violence” and then drawing their handguns and firing at paper targets that are supposed to “simulate the January 8th 2011 shooting in Tucson.” On his blog, Barnett added that those who participated in the vigils "are faster on the draw than a personal injury lawyer to dance in blood."
It’s difficult, if not impossible, to understand how pro-gun activists believe such comments were appropriate on a day when gun violence survivors and others were remembering those they have lost.
Among the most laughable campaigns in gun lobby history is their recent attempt to re-brand assault rifles as "Modern Sporting Rifles." The gun industry commonly described semiautomatic versions of military-style firearms as "assault weapons" prior to the late 1980s/early 1990s, when a series of gruesome mass shootings with these rifles gave that term a decidedly negative connotation.
Since then, the gun industry's rebranding campaign has been hounded by two persistent problems. Number one is their own inability to complete relinquish use of the term "assault rifle" for marketing purposes. Second, and far more damaging, is the total inability of pro-gun activists to go along with the charade that "Modern Sporting Rifles" are for target shooting and varmint hunting. They simply take too much pleasure in telling us what they really want to do with their assault rifles. For example, consider the following comments that pro-gun activists recently left at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Facebook page.Our founding fathers wrote the second amendment so that we could arm ourselves and take control of the government if the government gets out of oppressie. Some say that was before assault rifles were invented and the general public should not have assault weapons. If the government has assault weapons and we have muskets, how would we ever protect ourselves against an oppressive government?
The founding fathers meant that we needed enough guns to fight against a oppresive govt. If the govt can buy 30 cal mini guns, we should be able to as well, it's the only way to keep them honest. Look at the gap in weaponry available to them compared to us, look at how corrupt govt. is. Is that a coincidence? As far as the technology of 200 years ago muskets were all the armies of the world had as well, naturally as technology progressed we should have had it available to us as well.
The 2nd Amendment is referring to all guns. It does not mean just guns for hunting and sports shooting. It is mainly talking about guns that can be used to keep tyrannical governments in check. Our right to keep and bear arms was established so that our government never has complete power over us like the government (Britain) of our founding fathers. Ask the Libyans, the Syrians, the Iraquis, and numerous African countries how it felt for them when the only ones allowed to own guns were their governments? Do you really think our government is so pure and will always look out for our best interests to the point where they would never try to make us do something we did not want to do?
We have the 2nd amendment to stop tyrannical government. IE: Obama.
theres nothing intelligent about the government people expect the same useless ass bastards that have been destroying this so called equal country for years to fix a obviously heated situation people will raally around anything useless as gun control its like war on drugs thats a failure and so is gun control seriously they do nothing but send jobs over seas and tell you whats right and wrong in their eyes in my oppinion someone should storm dc and kill off government start new and make this place about people instead of the dollar
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." They didn't talk out of their asses. They just got through slaughtering representatives of the Crown over taxdollars and legislative representation. They would have been shooting YEARS ago.
You'll never get our ARs EVER. We will fight to the last patriot to stop it. I hope you're ready to kill a few million people because that's what you will have to do. Molon Labe ... Are you a statist? Then you have no grasp of the Second Amendment at all. You think it was to protect duck hunting? Target shooting? If calling me an insurrectionist makes your ivory tower feel all nice and shiny, go right ahead. I'll see you in November when this nonsense is dealt with as it should be.
it doesn't matter what SCOTUS says there are more black guns in the hands of civs 2day than ever and any attempt to change this = CWar
to all of you ignorant gun ban pussies. you don't like the second amendment? you don't like people being able to defend themselves? shut your shit stinking mouths or go find another country to live in. Great Brittan is a pussy country with no guns, so is Australia, among others, pick your place to be vulnerable to crime and go there and die. goodbye and good riddance. "we the people" will never allow our 2nd amendment right to be taken, not ever, even if it means civil war, and it will be the low life liberals like all of you that we will be after. you can count on that. We are taking our country back. this is not your country. oh by the way take your atheist's and homo freaks with you.
the government is orchestrating these shootings to create a state of panic in the nation to justify banning guns thus starting a cival war, the likes of which has never been seen before, anyone that doesnt serve the constitution will be exterminated from this country!
Unless you can disarm all the governments, crooks and thieves, how would this make anything better? Especially when they are synonymous! If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it. Wake up, we have a fascist government wanting to disarm you from protecting yourself....from them!
There is no such thing as a civil, safe or secure society without guns. The weak and defenseless become easy prey. Those who are hated by their gov't for whatever reason are made victims of genocide and every imaginable cruelty (eg the Jews in Hitler's time and Protestants during the reign of Catholicism in the dark ages). History and current events scream of the dangers of having no legitimate power of defense against common criminals and mos importantly gov'ts. A piece of paper is not legitimate (try using that on an attacker). Many countries have wonderful constitutions--in vain. Having guns doesn't mean violence it prevents it more than anything else. Common sense would dictate that if criminals knew you were armed they'd be less likely to threaten you, fearing for their own safety. This creates peace. If we were as armed as police and military they would fear to harm us if given the orders to do so. This creates even greater and more valuable peace and security. Why has America been one f the greatest havens in the world and enjoyed considerable absense of gov't threats to its citizens for so many years? Why did refugees flock here to escape their own countries? If every poor and oppressed person in 3rd world countries could bear sufficient arms able to defend themselves against their oppressors they too could enjoy the benefits we have in our civilized world. But, instead, they are brutalized, abused, kept in poverty and ignorance, and suffer oppression we don't even know of. And in the end, in spite of all this, and reason and common sense, many people with to see the only worthwhile place left on earth to live in full of defenseless, once-free people at the mercy and disposal of criminals who obey no laws and gov'ts [historically and currently known for mass murder ( not to mention the most gruesome and horribly unimaginable cruelties every devised)] guilty of the blood of unnumbered hundreds of millions of innocent civilians.
