HomeMost Popular on AATTPWatch This Author Destroy A Violent Gun-Nut’s Threats In Under 5 Minutes!

Watch This Author Destroy A Violent Gun-Nut’s Threats In Under 5 Minutes!

Author Tom Diaz appeared in a CNBC documentary entitled America’s Gun, The Rise of the AR 15, and addressed the psychopathic gun nuts who claimed they need AR-15’s and who advocate armed insurrection. Diaz asks the question,

“Ok, so who exactly is it that you wanna shoot? Is it your local sheriff? Is it your mayor? Is it your governor? Who is it that is the face of this oppressive government that you think you need this gun to kill?”

Now we all know that these tin-foil hat-wearing basement dwellers don’t stand a chance against the might of the US Armed Forces, but the delusion persists. In response, Diaz received a threatening comment from a commenter on his blog who saw the Diaz interview about the AR-15 and dangerous domestic right-wing terrorists.

Here’s an excerpt of the post by the violent seditionist commenter “G. Wright”

Mr. Diaz,

On CNBC’s program “American Gun, Rise of AR-15” you posed a chest thumping, angry question to those who view our government as tyrannical. You asked ”Who’s face is it we would shoot?” It is your face Mr. Diaz. It is every face of every person that seeks to deny us our rights under the constitution. It is the face of politicians that moved to chisel our rights to the point where we can be provoked no more.

Look around Mr. Diaz. The people grow angry at un-American liberals. They will come for you someday, and you will not escape their justice.

Watch Tom Diaz DESTROY this lunatic in under 5 minutes:


Americans Against The Tea Party is a group committed to exposing the Tea Party’s lies, violence, racism, ignorance, intolerance, bigotry, and corporatist fascist efforts to subvert our democratic process – and we are organizing to defeat Tea Party/GOP candidates on ballots everywhere.
  • http://AARP.org [email protected]

    I heard you mention your first amendment right? Well I hate to inform you but that rights been under attack as well. I had a cop pull me over for allegedly running a red light. He was fishing for probable cause and stated he smelled marijuana. I stated if he smelled marijuana it was coming from his partner cause I didn’t smoke. He made a statement as did I. That statement got me arrested for disorderly for exercising my RIGHT to freedom of speech. My names Charles Stevens and yes I’m a gun owner. I don’t own a ar15 or any other type black gun. I own plenty of others that’ll do what I need them too. As far as I’m concerned my second amendment right grants me the rights to keep and bear ALL arms to protect myself from both foreign and domestic. When it comes down to it no one knows who gives the order to ATF toe-legally steel citizens guns but if these people knew who, then I fact they would shoot them in the face. I’m Native American and my ancestors have been being lied to since this country was stolen by our now ruling government. Our rights are a figment of our imagination. Yes your freedom of speech too if the government don’t want to hear it. I did put my name above, and yes that’s my real name. I’m no extremist gun nut but if you tell me the name of the person(s) coming to TRY and take my gun and ill tell you exactly who I’ll shoot in the face. People have rights and beliefs but in this day and age people are more to afraid to exercise them. Not me! “Don’t tread on me” (or lay at my feet). Signed, Charles Stevens from Maine

  • CJ

    Why would anyone need an AK for home protection? Give me a pump action shot gun and that’s all the protection I need.

    • http://gravatar.com/johnf4303 JohnF (Boulder, Co)

      Reagan also said trees are a major cause of air pollution…

      Plenty of self defense reasons for civilans to have weapons, even out & about. Crime only happens at home?

      And this isn’t about machine guns. Anything capable of fully auto has been heavily restricted since 1934, and since the GCA of ’68, there are no new imports or purchases among civilians (ban created a new class of highly priced collectors items)
      Fully auto has been virtually absent from crime in the US for decades.

      And the Department of Fatherland Security in a recent procurement order called fully auto military rifles a “personal defense weapon” complete with “normal full capacity magazine”.

      • Bob Cull

        Good job of evasion through technicality there John! Technically you are stating a fact when you point out that the AR is a semi automatic and not a full automatic. Now tell me that it cannot fire at the same rate as a full automatic when equipped with a bump stock! I have seen it fired with the bump stock and the rate of fire is no less than the M-16 that I was issued in the Army and I am not referring to the rate when set on semi auto, I am talking about fire rate when set to full auto which were the options we had at that time. When you make misleading statements in defense of your cause you do nothing to instill trust, you show that you have something to hide. You make it hard to trust that you truly are a safe, law abiding and responsible gun owner.

  • https://www.facebook.com/cwningen.elahrairah Cwningen Elahrairah

    I am not ‘anti gun’ ive shot guns before , however i did it in a place that was safe! away from harm with professionals and sure id do it again! it was very fun! I think people need mental tests , the amount of threats ive had from pro gun people , threats of rape and murder .. and i think yes this is the exact reason people dont want YOU to have a gun ! what normal man threatens to rape and kill a girl just because her opinion differs . So by all means have fun shooting a gun on a range in controlled places , shit if you are of sound mind! keep one in your house! its the crazies that need stripping

  • Hippie

    I think guns should be illegal. Period. There. I said it. http://unlimitedwhispers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/kanye-west-shrug.jpg

    • Bob Cull

      I’m not a radical, but I am fairly liberal and I don’t even come close to agreeing with you on that one, Hippie. They may interpret the Constitution differently they aren’t 100% wrong, only about 95%, we don’t have to strip all of the people of all guns, only some people and most of them only some of their guns. There is no reason nor is there an easy way to ban all guns. We only need effective regulation.

      • RichardR

        LMAO…I mean…snicker snicker. Treebeard Cull called somebody else a hippie ;)

        • Bob Cull

          LMAO! In fairness, he did identify himself as Hippie and I just used the appellation he gave. :D

  • CJ

    Republicans…remember your idol Ronald Reagan said:

    “I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

    “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,”

  • Mando

    Proud of you, Tom Diaz, you are the man. I step on these cockroches every chance I get.

  • Dragoness

    Guns are basically penis extensions for most of the fanatics. It is an attack on their manhood to try to control said penis extension. We have surpassed the time that guns will protect us from our own government. Having one in your house is almost a guarantee of an accident or the neighbors kid getting shot or a suicide or family shooting, etc… where it barely ever saves a life in a home invasion or break in. A gun would only be good for protection if everyone had one unsaftied and cocked at all times. What sweet new hell that would be eh? When this law was written the country was a different place. Guns were needed for hunting and protection. Not so anymore. They are a dangerous toy now that needs to be regulated well because innocent children die every day from them.

    • http://thereb Regina Tollfeldt

      I totally agree with you Dragoness! AK’s are not a needed type
      of gun to have for home protection, if one is needed then. I
      believe having a gun at home that is not kept away from children and under lock and key is a danger to themselves and
      not protection against an outsider. I believe that those who
      keep harping about the need for guns has to have a loose,
      macho-type brain. Reasonable laws re: guns is not a danger
      that guns will be banned altogether. That is only a radical’s
      cry of a coward. We need laws, or just let the radicals have
      their way so that they can go hogwild owning a number of guns. They are the danger !!!!!

    • http://gravatar.com/johnf4303 JohnF (Boulder, Co)

      The guns=penis canard is usually brought up. We have to think it’s by people who feel that’s what they’d think if they had one…
      Tell us in your world of penis compensation fascination; If a man has a small carry gun, what is he “compensating” for? Are you saying all women who own and carry are under penis envy? Pretty sick world view you have and view of others who you don’t know or understand.

      If people are sane and sensible, their guns don’t ever get played with irresponsibly by kids, and whatever numbers you use for wrongful gun deaths, they’re buried by the number of times civilians use guns in defense. Proven cases by the US DOJ, and many more if a dead or captured crook isn’t the criteria (No report with the police if there was no crime, and in =~90% no shot is fired and the crook is deterred.) Civilians kill or capture more crooks than police and civilians who use guns in defense are less than 20% as likely as police to use guns wrongly or cause undue harm.

      Guns not needed for protection in the modern era? That’s news to people who save a life or stop a crime, or to the CDC reports that defense with a firearm is the surest way to emerge unharmed when defending against assault.
      It’s a fundamental tenet of our laws that the police have no legal duty to protect citizens in dire extremis even if they can. The recent NY court decision is the latest of very many from all jurisdictions at all levels of jurisprudence.
      Police protect the powers-that-be from us (if you missed the occupations and civil rights upheavals). In dire times and cities are burning or flooding, police are pulled out for their own safety to sit in the rich neighborhoods.

      • AATTP

        You’re a liar.

        1-3 Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

        We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

        4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

        We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

        Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

        5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

        Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

        Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.

        6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

        Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns

        Publication: Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.

        9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

        Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

        May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

        May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention 2002: 8:236-238.


  • Stephanie

    I love Bob Cull!!!!!! Your comments are always right on the money.

  • jdsonice

    I am not a “nut”. I trust the government, I obey the laws and my personal philosophy is that if I don’t like a law I still have to obey it until it is changed. I don’t hunt neither do any of my friends.

    I am also a gun owner and enthusiast – I own a couple of revolvers and a couple of rifles including an AR15. Every 3-4 months my friends and I go to an outdoor range and we shoot at paper targets.

    We have no thoughts of shooting anyone or anything more dangerous than a paper target. Or maybe a plastic jug filled with water.

    Rest of the time this gun like all others sits in a safe with a lock on it.

    I see no reason for me NOT to own an AR15. It is fun to shoot and I enjoy that.

    Tell me why I cannot own it.

    • AATTP

      Well, it’s about giving up non-essential individual freedoms for the protection of the many. Is it so “fun to shoot” that when 20 kids are massacred in mere minutes with one your enjoyment supersedes their safety and right to LIVE?

      Hellfire missiles and napalm might be a blast to own (pun intended), but for the common good, that’s not legal.

      • RichardR

        Well said. I’m with JD in the sense that I’ve owned AR15s and AK47s, as well as a SPAS 12, three 9 mils, matching .45s and a dozen or so others. And I’ve built flamethrowers and grenade launchers…not for anything nefarious. Just for fun, for use in a controlled environment, against inanimate targets. And don’t get me started on how many oxyacetylene balloons I’ve sent up. It’s LOADS of fun blowing stuff up, and the AK47 is a study in mechanical poetry. I’ve got a disassembled AK-47 all polished up and hanging in a case in my living room, right next to part of my sword collection and an old Holley carb.

        Weapons are fun…they’re loud, they’re sharp, they blow stuff up, and they spit fire. But as much as I love weapons as machines of purpose, I’d gleefully melt down every one of mine if outlawing them prevented another Sandy Hook. My fun isn’t worth the price of a single child’s life. A real man knows it’s his job to protect women and children…ALL of them. He doesn’t put his selfish need for fun ahead of that. Not judging you, JD…just my perspective.

        • Bob Cull

          I am with you, Richard. I own no guns at the moment but I have for most of my life, and they can be fun, but fun doesn’t trump a human life.

      • http://gravatar.com/johnf4303 JohnF (Boulder, Co)

        Don’t penalize the many for the actions of the few. Plenty of other things we could address about those mad mass shooters but the easy one simpletons go after is the guns.
        We don’t ban bars and cars for the few that create mayhem with them.
        Try deterence against these nutters: plenty of squawking about allowing schoolsstafff to be armed, but never good reasons whuy it’s a bad idea but hyperbole and red herrings. Other reasons for owning such rifles too, that are matters of life & death for some.

        • AATTP

          A cars intended purpose isn’t to kill. Talk about a fallacy. It’s not a penalty to have to go through a background check. The people who are most opposed to reasonable gun safety laws in my opinion are the very reason we NEED gun safety laws.

        • Bob Cull

          No good reasons for not arming teachers, John F? How about this one, my sister is a teacher in a city school and she and most of her colleagues are in agreement, that they do not want to be armed guards, nor would they be comfortable knowing that the teacher down the hall is packing heat. Teachers are not police officers or military personnel, they are there to TEACH not fight off some survivalist or militia a$$hole.

          What I hear all the time that no one can give me a good reason for is the argument that by requiring background checks and limiting the type of weapons that can be legally obtained we are “punishing” the “majority” because of the actions of a few. How so? If you are, as is always claimed by those who want NO limitations at all, “law abiding” and “responsible” why would it be so onerous to comply with the law? It is not the responsible law abiding gun owner that these laws are meant to inhibit, it is the survivalist or militia whack job they are aimed at. If you think that you have a Constitutional right to overthrow the government then you should not be allowed to own a water gun let alone the real thing.

          • CJ

            I truly do not understand the opposition to background checks to owning a gun. It’s not a “sorry…you can’t own any guns at all” stance to every citizen. I’m all for the background checks…I’d have no problem having one done in order to purchase a weapon. If I am alright with a job doing a background check then how is that any different? I have nothing to hide.

          • Bob Cull

            They have been trained to be paranoid, CJ. The NRA, in order to drum up sales for their corporate masters, have taught them to hear “ban” when someone says limit and “confiscation” when they hear control.

            They have taught them that background checks are really just a method for creating a list of all gun owners so they will know where to go to confiscate the guns when the elected government decides to become a dictatorship and disarm everyone.

            In short, they are unable to think rationally or for themselves, they think what they are told to think.

          • http://gravatar.com/johnf4303 JohnF (Boulder, Co)

            I’ve never spoken against background checks such as we have now. What we object to is a background check for every “transfer” such as passing one to a friend at a range to let them try or trouble-shoot it, or going into a store and requiring a check every time you ask to handle one, or letting a family member hold onto it while you’re away (such as Manchin/Toomey would have potentially allowed to be prosecuted -insertion of such language at the last minute is why bi-party support was denied)
            Restricting the type of weapon owned is limiting, and I didn’t say it was punishing, though there’s some reason to say that such rules are denying presumptive innocence. Also, you can’t have it both ways: In US vs Miller, it was established that the 2A specifically allowed weapons suitable for military use, so things that aren’t typical military equipment can be banned. Now, semi-autos which no military on the planet equips their troops with are “weapons of war”.

            Who ever said anything about teachers being security guards or police or military? And ask your teacher friends how they feel about being characterized as too slow & stupid to learn & retain skills, potentially unstable and likely to murder their students at a moment’s notice (the common objections we hear). What I’d call them is citizens, lawfully going armed about their regular day. (I don’t hold that only a government job and badge instantly confers nerves of steel and the restraint, judgement, and patience of a saint. I’d avoid calling them anything but regular citizens -which to some people, means untrustworthy, needing to have all dangerous objects prohibited.

            Funny, your insistence that there’s no constitutional right to overthrow the government would be a surprise to Abraham Lincoln. Actually he said it;’s the constitutional right to take it back and restore it, and the revolutionary right to overthrow it, if left no choice.

            And those who insist that the citizens with small arms can’t stand against the modern mechanized military tyranny we’re becoming, only point out that civilians should have access to anything a modern infantry unit might deploy with, and that the government shouldn’t have standing forces to deploy heavy force-projection assets without citizen volunteers.

          • Bob Cull

            Time to get a fresh carton of tin foil, John, your hat isn’t doing it any more, you should line all of your walls and ceilings with foil too. Look out! The gubmint is comin ta git ya!

          • RichardR

            It’s always funny to me when I hear gun people talk about the military now. Back in 2003, our military was a GI Joe Ultimate Badass Undefeatable Machine of Amurika Laser-Guided Robot Awesomeness BOOM!! But sometime in 2008, it suddenly became an instrument of mechanized tyranny. Seems to me that you guys are all about making the military bigger and more powerful, as long as you’re the ones with your fingers on the trigger. Let somebody you disagree with come into power, and all the sudden it’s “a machine of tyranny.” Funny how that works.

            I love guns, and I have a disassembled AK in a case on the wall in my living room. So I get the appeal. But get real. An AR-15 is an M-16, and nobody’s fooled about it. Any idiot can sear pin an AR-15 half an hour before they go on a killing spree, so this whole argument that it’s anything but a military M-16 is hopelessly pedantic. Everybody in the world knows differently, and nobody’s fooled by the semantics. You want a semi-auto rifle for hunting, go buy a damned M1 Garand. It’s an objectively better gun anyway, and eight rounds were enough to take Normandy. There’s no reason to own an AR-15 except for the fact that it’s a sear pin away from an M-16. And semi-auto shotguns are better for self-defense. So…please.

            My mom was a teacher, and I spent a lot of time hanging around staff in schools. And I’ll tell you this: Teachers aren’t insulted because we think they’re too stupid to shoot. Most of them are relieved because they know OTHER TEACHERS. Let me tell you, I know plenty of teachers who probably thank God on a daily basis that Mr. Psycho down the hall isn’t armed. Yes, most teachers and school personnel are great people. But not all of them are. Even if 99.6% of school employees are completely calm, cool, emotionally balanced and well-trained, that still leaves 1 out of 300 who are a danger to themselves, their students and their co-workers. What it comes down to is this: If you wouldn’t trust someone to borrow your stapler, then there’s no reason to trust him with a gun.

            As far as American rebels overthrowing the military, I’ll say the same thing I always do: The whole concept is predicated on the belief that the military will in some way be too crippled to mount an effective attack or defense. That’s like saying that you can kick somebody’s ass, as long as somebody else breaks both of his arms first. Following that: You can beat anybody, as long as they can’t fight back. That’s not military strategy…that’s just thinking like a bully.

          • http://gravatar.com/johnf4303 JohnF (Boulder, Co)

            “sometime in 2008, it suddenly became an instrument of mechanized tyranny”

            Try back sometime before Wounded Knee.

            “Seems to me that you guys are all about making the military bigger and more powerful, as long as you’re the ones with your fingers on the trigger. Let somebody you disagree with come into power, and all the sudden it’s “a machine of tyranny.” Funny how that works.”

            Seems you’ve mistaken me for someone else. You’re apparently under the misapprehension that all people in favor of gun rights are TeaPublican redneck KKK fanatics.

            Easy for you to destroy a straw man, isn’t it?

            A civilian AR-15 is a sear pin away from an M-16?|
            That’s news to the BATFE. I know it’s a by-word that anyone with a few simple tools can convert one to fully auto, but that by-word is a lie.
            A federal rule on any parts since the GCA of ’86, is that the internal dimensions and the way parts fit into the mechanisms of the lower receiver is different. Specifically so that it isn’t a simple matter of dropping in some new parts. It would have to be re-manufactured with essentially the amount and capability of tooling it would take to make a new one or something else.

            Anyone with such capability is jealously watched by the BATFE, and displaying capability and even half-hearted intent to try it brings them down on you for possession with constructive intent or some such. Simply talking about a conversion is what brought about the siege at Ruby Ridge when agents tried to entrap Weaver into doing it.

            A federal class III FFL who owns an AR-15, must prepare all new paperwork and pay the extra taxes and file new paperwork before buying a DIAS which might with some work, make an AR-15 fully auto, (if you get the M-16 bolt carrier and other parts). Each DIAS is a new NFA & SOT “machine gun” under he rules, and if you don’t jump through all the hoops (and they are watching who buys such things) it’s automatically a felony to have it, even if it’s not installed.
            If you have a lower receiver which was simply militarized by swapping parts before being sold, it must have been in civilian hands since before ’86. It must be licensed as NFA with a federal class-III FFL & SOT, and no, they aren’t for sale. The GCA of ’86 made any such thing a very highly priced collector’s item.

            Fully auto has been and continues to be virtually absent from crime in the US for decades. Funny if it’s so easy to do it with a pair of pliers & a screw driver, why isn’t it done and why aren’t they used routinely by crooks?

            BTW, I agree wholeheartedly that an M-1 is a better rifle and a better choice. Pity that new rules to be proposed might make it a dangerous military weapon of war that civilians don’t need access to.

          • Bob Cull

            You are too accustomed to dealing with uneducated morons from the far right, John. I doubt very much that you as a penis deficient personage who needs a lot of substitutes in the form of guns has never heard of a bump stock. It costs a couple of hundred dollars and mounts in under five minutes with a couple of simple hand tools. Once it is mounted an Ar-15 becomes effectively a FULL automatic while TECHNICALLY remaining “semi-auto”.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6tORrODJE

          • RichardR

            That’s a perfectly valid point, Bob…but these people aren’t going to hear it. They’re not going to look at that guy with two drum clips firing off rounds at exactly the same rate as any M-16. They’re going to say “Well, but…yeah…but you lose accuracy over 200 yards doing that.” And then, when you reply that the M-16 was always a spray-and-pray weapon on full-auto, they’re going to say “Yeah, but you have to hold the stock to your shoulder, so you can’t hold it away from your body and fire over things or around corners.” Then, you’re going to say “Why the fuck would you need to fire from around a corner if you’re target shooting or hunting?” Then, they’re going to say “Uhhh…uhhhhh…well….NObama!!”

            Playing chess with pigeons, man.

          • Bob Cull

            If I knew what direction my target was in I could hit it blindfolded with an M-16 on full auto with a drum mag. When I say hit it I mean that if it was alive when I started to shoot, it would be dead when I was done. But you’re right they cannot understand rationality.

        • RichardR

          RE: Sometime in 2008, the military became an instrument of tyranny. “Try back sometime before Wounded Knee.”

          Yeah, that was kind of my point. That was actually sarcasm intended to point out the apparent hypocrisy of people who were all about building up the military in 2001 through 2007, but suddenly started calling it a weapon of tyranny in 2008.

          “It’s easy to destroy a straw man, isn’t it?” Oh…the multiple levels of irony are sucking me in! Yeah, it would be, if that were a straw man argument. I was talking about gun owners and people they don’t agree with. I never said you had to be a Teapublican/KKK to disagree with the person or party in charge. If I had said “Let ‘a liberal Democrat’ come into power, and all the sudden it’s “a machine of tyranny,”” then it would have been an equivocating straw man argument. As it stands, what I said (as a general statement) is true. Seems to me that you’re the one who’s equivocating…can’t imagine why.

          In reference to everything else: Yes, I know all of that. In my earlier posts, I’ve said that I’ve owned AR-15s, so I don’t need an education on the technical aspects of class licenses and converting a post-86 AR. I’m sorry I didn’t specify the parts needed to convert a post-86 gun. So, for the record:

          “An Pre-1986 AR-15 is one sear pin away from full auto operation. A post 1986 gun is one M-16 carrier, a DIAS and a fire-control away from full-auto. All but the DIAS are available online, and do not require any kind of background check or license to obtain. But don’t worry…anybody with access to basic shop tools can make a functional, unregistered DIAS and keep it on hand for when they want to overthrow the gummint. Or they can buy one for that one time they want to shoot up a school and plan to kill themselves afterward.”

          There…is that better? Does that satisfy your semantic requirements? I mean, I could get more specific, but no level of pedantry is going to change the fact that A) There’s no way for anyone looking at the gun to know if it’s been modified, B) You can legally convert it with a slide stock for bump-firing that gives you exactly the same fire rate, at the expense of some accuracy under full-auto, C) IT’S A GODDAMNED MACHINE GUN. I don’t care what level of “Well, only CRIMINALS would do that” argument you want to use, the very fact that it’s possible is enough for anyone but the most self-justifying pedant. Split all the hairs you want, and you’re still not going to change the basic nature of something that was designed to be an efficient killing machine.

          RE: The M1. Well, at least we agree on something. But last I heard, every assault weapons ban on the table applied to guns with removable box magazines. The M1 Garand has an internal clip. The carbine has an external clip, so even if they were to ban box clips completely (never going to happen), then the Garand wouldn’t be affected. As it should be. The carbine does nothing but increase the number of bullets you can fire in a minute…and who needs that for hunting or target shooting? So, I maintain the same opinion: If you can’t kill a deer with 8 30-06 rounds, then you’re a shitty hunter. Unless you’ve got a blood vendetta against Bambi’s entire family…yeah, then you might want the carbine.

    • Dean Gostling

      I’m with you JD, I’m a Vet & Liberal gun owner too. So when someone tells me I have to give up my NON-ESSENTIAL Freedoms I have a problem with that. I

      • CJ

        I quite honestly would not be comfortable with my kids attending a school where you have any one other than security armed…maybe the principle. But I do not want firearms in my children’s classrooms. Go ahead…let that teacher let it out of their sight for a moment…see what some pissed off teenager does if they get their hand on it. Mmmm…no…don’t think so. Guns do not belong inside the classroom.

  • Mike

    Being well armed is to ensure myself and my families safety, there is no target I want to shot, unless they try to harm me or my children. If it is a home invasion, my neighbor because our society breaks down and we are fighting over the food we have or if it is the government it doesn’t matter it is anyone that threatens to cause harm to myself or my family. I think that this is the thinking of most reasonable gun owners, if it was not they would already be out shooting people. Shooting someone is a last resort but being unable to fight back if need be is unacceptable.

    • Dragoness

      Somehow people get so singular sighted that they do not realize there are more and better ways to protect oneself. It just takes a little brain power to think of them,

  • Socrates

    From one vet to another, Thanks.

  • Luigi

    Looks like the coward is a time warner customer in the Austin, TX Area or at least used a connection in that area in some way

  • http://gravatar.com/johnf4303 JohnF (Boulder, Co)

    Responding to a limited shallow comment doesn’t prove your points are better than anything but cheap, shallow nonsense.

    Which face is the target when it comes to taking back the freedoms of the country from those in power who amply demonstrate they don’t care what our votes are or what we think or what’s right?

    Most likely the face-masked thugs cowering behind government jobs and issued heavy military equipment, who come to blow doors down and take political dissenters away to indefinite detention, torture, and execution.
    Judges and newspaper editors who write only pro-government opinions.
    Politicians who destroy our rights (to speak, protest, agitate for fair wages, responsibility from politicians and financiers, etc) and order military forces to be used against their own people.
    Crews of tanks and fighter planes who have to get out of their vehicles occasionally after sortieing against the People. facilities and tools of the immense infrastructure of supply & services which keep those tanks and fighter planes in action against the voters and tax-payers.

    From Col. Jeff Cooper
    “It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the men of Lexington and Concord, as well as the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The citizen most certainly can fight the government, and usually wins when he tries. Organized national armies are useful primarily for fighting against other organized national armies. When they try to fight against the people, they find themselves at a very serious disadvantage. If you will just look around at the state of the world today, you will see that the guerillero has the upper hand. Irregulars usually defeat regulars, providing they have the will. Such fighting is horrible to contemplate, but will continue to dominate brute strength.”

    “All the people constitute the militia — according to the Founding Fathers. Therefore every able-bodied man has a duty under the Constitution to become part of the “well-regulated” militia, specifically to understand and perform well with the individual weapon currently issued to the regular establishment. . . . Thus one who has not qualified himself with the M-16 may not be considered to be a responsible citizen.”

    “ I have been criticized by referring to our federal masked men as “ninja” … Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic. It has long been my conviction that a masked man with a gun is a target. I see no reason to change that view.”

    • AATTP

      LOL. Let’s see you fight an Apache helicopter, or an F-16, or an A-10 Warthog, or shoot down a stealth bomber or fighter before it vaporizes you and your collection of Glenn Beck books.

      “It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the men of Lexington and Concord, as well as the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan.”

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA – The military of today is coming with the most advanced weaponry on the planet, along with tanks, helicopters, cruise missiles, fighters, and bombers. You will not have these things. You will be wiped out. The mujahedeen were given military-grade weapons by US. Another thing you won’t have.

      Good luck, bubba.

      • http://boobelesandbeer.blogspot.ca/ Nate C

        Except that mechanized, organized warfare has constantly either lost to or could not achieve important goals that were met by guerrilla warfare in every major conflict since Korea.

        And that is including the international joke that is the War on Terror.

        What you just described is the epitome of winning a small battle, but the antithesis of a winning an extended war.

        Getting on topic, though:

        I actually personally agree that no civilian should own an assault rifle. That said, I strongly believe that every citizen has a right to defend their personal safety. As a Canadian…well, our government did a shit job of laying down ethical legal landscapes here.

        But so did the American government. It’s easy to spot when the laws go the wrong way, one way or the other. I respect one’s right to defend their home. I do not respect that they feel that they should own a weapon capable of assaulting someone else’s and killing another family before the magazine is dry.

        Personally, I think both Tom and his critic are tools. As learned and as experienced as Tom seems to be, why does he waste his time on this putz?

        As the saying goes, fighting on the internet is like the Special Olympics. Whether you win or lose, you’re still retarded.

      • http://gravatar.com/johnf4303 JohnF (Boulder, Co)

        Simple for you to mischaracterize me as a TP fanatic. I’m probably more “left” than you.
        My views on gun rights are informed by my feelings on social justice and egalitarian politics, and inform them.
        You say civilians with limited small arms can’t stand against a modern military: Wrong first of all, and your objections are pointed at your next objection asking why civilians need military weapons -and this siteabout this article has previously failed to approve posting ideas from me on what legitimate targets become available in such a dire time… The crews of those tanks and jets need to get out sometime, and they’re kept in the field by an immense supply & services infrastructure. Politicians would order those tanks and fighters against their people, and they’re not always invulnerable.

        • AATTP

          Provide sources to back up your claims or your comment will be deleted. I would love to see you take on an Apache helicopter, or a stealth bomber, or a tank.

          • RichardR

            Or an infrared-vision drone equipped with Sarin, VX gas or low-yield nuclear warheads. Or fully autonomous destroyers equipped with rail guns or lasers. All of which could be operated by a 10-year-old with an XBOX controller in the Oval Office. These people…their whole argument is predicated on the belief that the government will fall apart FIRST, and THEN they’ll fight back with a Bushmaster. So, basically, they’ll win as long as there’s nobody left to oppose them. Truly, these are brave soldiers.

          • http://gravatar.com/johnf4303 JohnF (Boulder, Co)

            About insurgencies managing to survive and win? Happens in the world.
            Insurgents in Iraq & Afghanistan targeted roads and airport facilities to get at those tanks and planes, and ground troops are still vulnerable against small arms and improvised weapons.
            In the run-up to the Iraq invasion of ’03, the US Army War College peer-reviewed periodical published an article saying that it’s proven and well known that full military force is diametrically opposed to the proper way to “fight” insurgencies. Other reports quoted Robert McNamara saying the same thing; he cited Che Gueverra saying that it’s almost guaranteed to fail and to gin up support for the insurgencies. Lots of water under that bridge since then.

            See the article co-authored by David Kopel “Gun ownership and Human Rights” (11 page .pdf file)
            “Civilians with light arms cannot necessarily overthrow a well-entrenched and well-armed regime, but even the most powerful governments find it very difficult to perpetrate genocide against populations armed with firearms. Genocide victims can, at the least, make it likely that a few secret policemen may die every time another family is rounded up. The costs quickly become unacceptably high for a regime that needs the approval and cooperation of its secret police. The historical record is very clear about how very rare it is for genocide to be attempted —let alone succeed— against an armed populace. If every family on this planet owned a good-quality rifle, genocide itself would be on the path to extinction.”

            In the worst case, see the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. Sure, they ultimately lost and almost all died, but they stood off the Wermacht and SS for weeks with a few small arms, and I think the world and history is the better for them having reisted being herded onto trains.
            In our own history, on a small scale, see Mattewan, and Athens Tennessee in ’46.
            Sand Creek and Wounded knee were about disarming and “containing” ethnic minorities, but they ultimately lost, too.

          • RichardR

            And how many of those insurgencies happened in places where they had flying robots, satellite surveillance, nerve gas, low-yield nuclear weapons, a society completely reliant on electricity, gasoline and interceptable communications? Don’t kid yourself: Those weapons you think are going to protect you are pea shooters, and anybody with any sense of military strategy could figure that out. This isn’t Afghanistan or Vietnam…there isn’t an “insurgency” in the United States they couldn’t end with a radio frequency jammer, a predator drone and a guard detail placed around the local Wal-Mart. Where did you think all those dollars the Repubs sent to the military industrial complex went over all these years? It’s gone to eliminating humans from the equation. And you REALLY think a few untrained rednecks with AR-15s are going to stop the US military industrial complex on its own home ground, where the supply lines are about an inch long, and every inch has been recon’d and mapped? You’re freaking DELUSIONAL.

            I’m not trying to be a demoralizer, or say that a population shouldn’t fight back against genocide. But I am a realist. Gun nuts built the military machine…you think it’s not equipped to win any fight on its own home ground? So, forget about it. Fighting back with a couple of rifles would be like mounting a horseback cavalry charge against a machine gun nest. It’s too late to worry about making a military response against these people, so get that idea out of your head. It would never work.

            If you’re that concerned about fighting back against a tyrannical government intent on genocide, why don’t you focus on getting your government under control in the first place? Start by going after the people who profit from our loss…the ogliarchs who would create a genocidal regime. Go after the billionaires and corporations who bribe our politicians, and the corrupt power brokers in our political system? The only effective weapon you have is your voice…that Bushmaster is nothing but a security blanket.

        • RichardR

          Well, yeah. You’re definitely egalitarian. They didn’t call the Colt Peacemaker “The Great Equalizer” for nothing. Ride on, cowboy.

    • Dan

      Wow. I’m really, seriously, amazingly glad I do not live in your paranoid little world. What a sick sad pathetic place it must be.

  • Jaden Hawksong

    MJBarkl, Im sorry but your desire to destroy the 2nd amendment wont ever pass. To be ratified a vast majority of states would need to sign it… and I cant see enough of those states being willing to destroy something sacred that our founding fathers put in place.

    I will admit that I am biased towards gun ownership. I live in Rural Montana where waiting for the cops takes about 30 minutes to 1 hour before the first unit would arrive in any emergency.

    I own 2 AR-15 rifles. I hunt with them (They make good deer guns), I protect my livestock with them. I also own 2 AK47’s for the same reasons. I also own a few shotguns and bolt actions, and a few ww2 surplus american 1911’s.

    I dont see changing my lifestyle because someone cant use a tool responsibly. A gun is a tool, like a hammer or a drill or a saw or a nail gun. It isnt evil simply because it exists or because its black or has a high capacity anything. Its a tool, it does what the owner wants.

    We don’t think to blame the owners who improperly stored their firearms or the medical system that failed to identify these people as dangerous, we don’t point at the ammo makers and demand they stop production. We dont blame the parents of the kids who go berserk for letting their deranged little kid walk the school halls instead of the mental institution when they knew their kid had issues. We don’t blame the school system for refusing to tell a parent their kids got psych issues (They dont because parents are overly sue happy to avoid their kid being labeled anything but “normal”) We don’t demand that medical laws be altered to make identification easier or to require police departments to put people into a mental health database the same way they would a criminal database.

    We dont do a good deal of things that could prevent the next school shooting, Banning “evil” black painted AR-15’s or AK-47’s wont stop the problem. Banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds wont keep the next set of kids alive. Banning gunshow sales wont stop little timmy from going postal.

    All that will do is make it harder for legitimate gun owners, recreational shooters, and competition shooters to do what they love or to carry what they feel is necessary to protect themselves, their family’s and their communities. It would make places like Montana far less safe because the police are so far away and take quite a bit of time to get here (Unless you want to invest in putting police and sheriff stations every few miles).

    Common Sense needs to be the rule of the day. If your kids deranged, seek help. If your kids deranged and you own guns, put them in the gun safe and dont tell anyone the combo. If your kids deranged, monitor what they do on the internet or if they suddenly start buying strange materials or ammo. This goes for anyone really, not just your kid.

    • Hunter Rose


      I understand your concerns. I have been a gun owner myself (Pre-Kids), and intend to be again one day soon. I would like very much to own a Semi-auto AR-15 or any of it’s generation. I understand that the balance is wonderful especially compared to the AK (which I have fired, not half-badly either).
      I like guns just fine, and I tend to read the 2nd to mean that “being necessary to the security of a free state”, means from EITHER foreign or domestic threats. (Just by writing this, I’m sure I’ve put myself on another government list). I agree with nearly everything you’ve said except for that one assumption you made.

      “Exactly who is trying to ‘destroy the 2nd amendment’, and what evidence do you have?”

      … is my question.

      The answer is “No one and None”.

      If you have at all been watching Fox ‘News’, I can guarantee they have provided only opinion, not evidence for this. You have been lied to.

      The real question I have for you is this:

      Should ‘they’ ever put me on a train to take me to a ‘camp’, what side will you be on?

      • Hunter Rose

        bad contraction!

    • Alec

      Jaden, there are multiple ways that need to be enacted to reduce gun deaths and regardless of your focus on the smallest section (the mentally ill) is typical of your unwillingness to admit that the almost unfettered access to guns is one and a far higher contributing factor than the mentally ill. Go and check the minute figures if gun deaths caused by the mentally ill. Also you are incorrect that smaller gun magazines will nit have an impact, again the common sense of risk analysis tells you this. Look at the children who escaped Sandy Hook when the shooter had to reload. Had he needed to reload 14 times instead of once the chances of more saved lives increases. Assault weapons are not needed for hunting nor are they required for self protection. A handgun can protect you just as efficiently and would in many cases would be easier to handle should a sudden occasion of self protection arise.

      Also nobody is talking about shutting down fun shows. This is again typical of illogical debate and scaremongering.

      Question, do you support expanded background checks so that a significant loophole that exists (gun shows) can be held accountable as are registered gun sales?

      Lets ignore the banning of particular magazine sizes or weapon types. Just answer the question above

    • David Unger


      It is because of people like you who live in rural Montana or people of Alaska who all depend on guns, sometime for your survival, that I am pro gun. You are also right we don’t always blame the right people for the tragedies that occur, why should responsible gun owners be penalized for irresponsible gun owners? They shouldn’t. But if you think about it, scientific studies early on led us to understand the reasons of why so many die in car accidents also, what did we do? Not take the cars away but put into place some common sense legislation that over time make our roads safer for our families to drive on. Mandatory seat belt laws, speed limits, limits on horse power, insurance mandatory, testing eye sight, tests to get a license and of course let’s not forget that we must register our vehicles.

      The dems went after some common sense legislation, they did not try to take guns away. The NRA on the other hand tried to make you all believe that they’re coming for the guns!!! Run, hide, Hitler, Stalin shoot shoot!!! A smoke screen that falsely made people believe something untrue. If all of us don’t recognize that we have a serious problem in this country with guns then we really don’t have our eyes wide open.

      Fighting our tyrannical government is just another smoke screen by the NRA. They say it’s what our forefathers wanted, they knew. Up in arms!! Well fine and dandy in an age of muskets and musket balls. If you can’t see this is a different day, a different world, then you simply don’t want to. Try to fight Laser guided missiles, Stealth Bombers, F-18s and men who are so highly trained in every style of warfare known to man. You can’t and you know you can’t.

      So instead of being on the side of NO GUNS ANYWHERE or on the side of WE WANT GUNS IN EVERY HAND, how about being on the side of having the conversation of what measures can we take that will be a start to making our citizens safer without infringing on the rights of good hard working Americans who depend on guns in their lives. Common sense democrats like myself understand that abolishing the 2nd amendment is not an option but working to put safety measures in place to try and ease the death rates caused by guns is a necessity.


      • David Unger

        I meant Hunter not Jayden..

    • http://www.mjbarkl.com/run.htm mjbarkl


      People like you and the people you support will eventually so thoroughly screw up the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that sometime within the next century (which is how long these fundamental constitutional changes take) the Right will be no more and what you will have is a privilege, if that, like driving a car. As it is in every civilized country on earth.

      I outline legislation, at mjbarkl.com/repeal.htm that allows you to keep your firearms but penalizes the mischief.


    • RichardR

      I own or have owned all the guns you just mentioned, and my friend…if you need an AK-47 or an AR to hunt deer, then you really need to get some target practice in. I don’t live in rural Montana, but I can peg a running white-tail through the neck at 600 yards with a 30.-06. Coyote a little closer. If you had any pride in yourself as a shooter, you could get the job done with an M1. And, just out of curiosity…what are you defending against with an AK-47? Packs of wolves? I know you’re not sniping single targets with that thing. And if you are…you’re using the wrong gun.

      That being said, we can’t keep putting military weapons into the hands of psychos because some guy in rural Montana might at some point have to defend sheep against wolves at 500 yards. I’m sorry, but if you can’t defend yourself with the M1 Garand used to take Normandy, a semi-auto shotgun and a .45, then you’ve got no business living in Montana. If you’ve got that many problems with your livestock, then try an electric fence.

      And yes, a gun is a tool. A tool used to kill. You can’t drive a gun, you can’t build a house with a gun, and a gun doesn’t make toast. It’s designed to kill, and only kill. There are plenty of tools available to kill and defend that don’t require a 30-round clip and 1,000 rounds a minute. Christ…I killed a 300-pound black bear in my back yard with a frigging KATANA five years ago. What’s YOUR excuse?

  • carolyn LeBeauf

    Yes Mr Diaz, g right is a coward. Their are many of those cock roaches out their. Your description of this cock roach was spot on. Bravo, sir.

    • ROCK

      I agree, these people that advocate for and own battlefield weapons Mr Diaz are mostly cowards and will probably shoot any body they perceive as a threat….. whether its a threat or not. Right now they seem to think if a person looks suspicious
      they have a right to stop and detain a person (an unarmed person) and if such person resist they have a right to shoot to kill.

  • HB

    Epic, intelligent, and spot on. This is the type of American citizen the rest of the planet dearly hopes will win out.
    The alternative is too sickening to comprehend.

  • https://www.facebook.com/john.dewert.35 John DeWert

    I don’t want to shoot anybody. You are absolutely correct in the assessment of the individual who hid under anonymity. A desire for blood is dangerous. I however do choose freedom, and I will not infringe upon the freedoms of others. I will remain secure in my own liberty by the means that I deem appropriate. I am not a “tin-foil hat-wearing basement dweller”, rather I am among “the might of the US Armed Forces”. I do not foresee an imminent tyranny, but I think that those in the military should not be counted in whole as an arm of such tyranny, if it were to evolve. In some hypothetical fantasy I feel that a resistance bound to liberty would largely be comprised of the military. Have we come so far as to forget that some of our founders were once members of the British military? Is this ancient history to us? Their are evil people from all spectrums and my honor refuses me to be counted among them. So do what you will among your spheres of safety and security, but do not feign that I am a party to it. Those without such a desire for liberty should find a way to deal with evil that does not impede upon those of such character that they have no need of protection. I am not above the law. On the contrary, I am bound by it, but never the less recognize that not all laws are just and not all laws are infringements. The remarks of both sides are equally inflammatory and divisive. How misplaced any cause of liberty can be than this?

    • Robb

      That was a perfect, well-reasoned appeoach. Thank you so very much for your service to our country, and continued will to serve as a voice if experience and wisdom. Your words as concise and eloquent as they were, evoke a much needed sense of humility and introspection that I didn’t relirealize was lacking in my own schema. I am humbled by this timely much needed addition to the debate.

    • Robb

      Sorry for the auto-correct typos.

  • George

    So they need machine guns to defend themselves against people who don’t want them to have machine guns . . . I sense a flaw in their logic.

  • Keith Chadwick

    I am not an American, I am a British citizen who has grown up in Canada. However I spend a very large part of my time sitting here at my keyboard, reading, observing, learning and commenting. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of right wing craziness that is spewed from the anonymous mouth’s of so called patriots. Just the other day I was called a ‘libtard fascist’. I tried to point out that fascism was actually right wing, not left but they did not believe me. Nor did they believe me that they where the ones acting in a manner to bring about a fascist state. This is the scary part of the right wing crazies. They are completely adamant in there beliefs and there is no discussion. The other significant and consistent thing about these people, they never ever actually have the balls to use their real name. Guess that about sums them up doesn’t it!!

    • Bob Cull

      Welcome to our world, Keith!

  • http://www.mjbarkl.com/run.htm mjbarkl

    The voice of reason:

  • Bob Cull

    Spectacular! These keyboard tough guys don’t expect any of we “wimpy ass, panty waist liberals will dare to stand up to them. When someone does they wet themselves and run away. Mr. Diaz did a superb job of putting the loser in his place and describing him to a T. Keep up the good work Mr. D!

  • http://twitter.com/MichaelKirchman Michael Kirchmann (@MichaelKirchman)

    I protest! Dissing rats and cockroaches is uncalled for. Otherwise, spot on, sir.

    • http://gravatar.com/latenightlarry latenightlarry

      Mr. Gun Nut isn’t a cockroach… he barely has the brains to be called a single celled paramecium.

Scroll To Top
website security Website Security Test