csgv is the canary

While the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is undeniably irrelevant, I still believe it is important to keep tabs on what they, and their followers/members, think of pro-rights activists throughout the country, if only to better gauge the desperation of the anti-right cultists – the organization closest to being sucked into the wastebin of history is also likely to be the most hysterical, in both definitions of that word.

In any case, in September of last year, a fellow open carrier discovered that Toys ‘R’ Us has a corporate anti-firearm policy, and decided to do his shopping elsewhere at a company that respects our individual, Constitutionally-protected right to self-defense.  As a free human being and an American citizen, it is certainly his right to vote with his dollar, and let the companies in question know exactly why he is doing so.

Predictably, Ladd Everitt, writing at the CSGV’s Facebook page, had a coronary over this law-abiding citizen’s behavior, intentionally mischaracterizing it as:

Gun rights activist in Utah furious that he can’t openly carry a loaded handgun in Toys ‘R’ Us.

Of course, guns do not have rights, but Ladd has never quite twigged to that little fact…

In any case, this post is not written to highlight his words, but rather the words of one of his cultish devotees, a certain Nancy Bradford:

Nancy Bradford, CSGV CultistIf this guy cant understand why carrying a gun in a toy store is dangerous he shouldnt be having children, let alone be able to carry a gun.

I would take the cheap shot and point out the humor in Nancy’s rather loose grasp on grammar or the English language, but, instead, let us just focus on her message, and allow her typographical skills to speak for themselves. 

Just because this man wants to be able to lawfully defend his family while they go shopping, Nancy believes he should be stripped of his ability to have children own his right to own private property.  That is positively chilling.  This man broke no law.  This man is not a criminal.  This man threatened no one.  This man bothered no one.  And yet Nancy feels perfectly justified to invade his life, destroy his family (or hope for a future family), and abridge his Constitutionally-protected, individual rights… with the full force of the United States Government to back her up, I feel certain. 

“Disgusting” does not even begin to cover that kind of hateful, despicable, intolerant, repugnant belief. 

This is what the anti-rights cultists think of you, ladies and gentlemen – that you are nothing more than subhumans who are only permitted to enjoy the rights they think you should be able to enjoy… and if you try to enjoy “too many” rights, or if you try to exercise those rights in a way that they find “offensive”, well, you should have those rights, and others, forcibly stripped away from you, up to and including the right to own you own body, apparently.  Whatever happened to, “My body, my choice,” Nancy? 

The sad thing, at least for Nancy, is that a seven-year-old is more situationally aware and more intelligent than she is

Both my wife and I carry, Upon seeing this we were faced with a tough decision, (the only Toys-R-Us in town is in a questionable part of town) do we take them back to the car where we noticed when we parked that the empty space next to ours had broken glass on the ground from what appeared to be a car window, and a quick glance showed three more piles of glass in the immediate area. My wife and I decided that this wasn’t an option, so we discussed it with our 7 year old. We asked him if he wanted to go in, he said "No, they cant stop bad people." Sometimes children say things that make you think, when a seven year old understands that the only people that abide by these law are the "good people" and adults think that a sign will deter a criminal, who is the more intelligent?

(Emphasis added.) 

And lest you think that seven-year-old’s concerns are unfounded as the cultists would delude you into believing, there is no magical shield surrounding Toys ‘R’ Us stores keeping guns and/or criminals out… there are just pointless signs ineffectively disarming the law abiding to assuage the paranoid, irrational fears of people like Nancy Bradford – a person who would apparently sterilize you for lawfully, safely, and responsibly exercising rights she disagrees with. 

So, yes, the CSGV and all those attached to it are slip-sliding away into the mists of irrelevancy (a decline which they seem all-too-eager to accelerate), but I do find it useful to keep tabs on them and their members from time to time, if only to remind myself of the depraved, revolting, and borderline-insane beliefs these people continue to bitterly cling to. 

(Yes, Miguel beat me to this first, but, gorram it, I am going to have my say.)

5 thoughts on “csgv is the canary”

  1. Linoge,

    I also noticed that the CSGV tried to portray this as another “angry gun owner” but the original posting doesn’t read that way.

    It was more simply “Hey, they don’t want me to carry here, we are leaving.”

    Very calm, very matter of fact. No anger unless I missed something.

    But that doesn’t fit the narrative of out of control gun owners no does it?

  2. We have Dick Heller, they have Joseph Heller: Crazy people shouldn’t have guns, but you’d have to be crazy to want to have a gun.

  3. @ Miguel: Longer != better, though it is something I am working on. Sort of.

    @ Bob S.: Yeah, the “furious” bit boggles my little brain… The man expressed his displeasure at the situation, told his wife to gather up their kids, and off they went. No screaming match. No shooting anyone. No shouting at the employees. Nothin’. And yet that is someone acting in a “furious” fashion.

    I wonder how much Ladd interacts with other people on a daily basis?

    Then again, gross, damaging mischaracterization of pro-rights individuals is pretty much the name of their Twitter game.

    @ TS: And that is, indeed, the Catch 22 they would try to trap us in.

Comments are closed.