Gun Control Activist Wants You To Ask Your Thanksgiving Host If They Have Weapons

Authored by Mac Slavo via,

With Thanksgiving upon us, many are planning festivities which include feasts and gatherings with friends and family. 

But some others, like gun control activists, seek to make your holiday as miserable as possible.

Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, used the trending hashtag #ThanksgivingWeek to call on parents to inquire about guns in homes where their child may be visiting this year.

Watts has been fighting against gun owners for years, pushing for gun control legislation, and has encouraged businesses to adopt gun-free policies. She is also the board chair for Rise to Run, an organization focused on encouraging communist young women to run for office.

But once again, proving that leftists are actually the violent ones who wish for the death of those who don’t believe the same fantasies they do, the lemmings who follow Watts were out in full force.

What most leftists don’t realize is that most gun owners don’t care about their emotions.

They probably will relish a Thanksgiving dinner without the political diarrhea that so many gun control activists spew. If I were asked the question Watts proposed, I would tell the person asking that it’s none of their business and if they don’t like then tough.

Because the cold hard truth no liberal wants to realize, is that gun control will only affect those willing to follow those laws and punishes those who have committed no crime. 

There’s no other way to look at it, and until the communists on the left can realize that, Thanksgiving may be more enjoyable without them.

Personally, I think that liberals and communists have an issue with gun rights because those are the people who can tell them “no” and back it up.  It’s hard to control a person who’s armed when you only bring your feelings to the fight.


El Vaquero Overfed Thu, 11/23/2017 - 12:34 Permalink

Moms Demand Action is a Bloomberg affiliated organization.  They tried to push some BS bill in my state last legislative session that, if I lended a rifle to a friend, I would have had to gone through a background check to get it back because I was going to keep it for more than five days.  Not only did the elected sheriffs come out against it, many drove for several hours to show up and tell the legislature in person that it was unenforceable.  Aside from being unenforceable, it was some of the worst written legislation that I have ever seen.  They didn't even understand the implications and logical inconsistencies in their own bill.   I was also told that a lot of the "lobbyists" from Moms Demand Action were from out of state trying to pack my state's legislature.  It didn't work.  Gun owners are a fucking grass roots machine.  We killed the bill.

In reply to by Overfed

auricle knukles Thu, 11/23/2017 - 13:04 Permalink

Yes, every parent does have an obligation to teach their children about gun safety.If you believe your child to be reckless then it is your obligation to 'warn' another parent that if they do have firearms to lock them away because your child does not know how to behave around them.

In reply to by knukles

Nom de Guerre El Vaquero Thu, 11/23/2017 - 13:01 Permalink

Yep.  Similar situation here.  They managed to get enough signatures to put this to a ballot issue.  I think that many of the petition supporters collecting signatures here, were from out of state as well.  The local rag was trumpeting how the bill was going to pass per their polls.  The number of bumper stickers against the bill were too numerous to count.  The sheriffs were also by and large opposed to it, and many of them were featured in several ads against the bill.  Well, election day came, and the bill was defeated 52% to 48%.A few thoughts:  1)  I wish this had been defeated by a much greater margin.  These twits will be emboldened by that 48% and try again; particularly in the urban areas in the southern part of the state.  2)  The ballot/bond situation in this state is abyssmal.  A simple majority is all that is needed to shove bad legislation down our throats.  Example:  The gimme-dats in this state managed to get a ballot issue passed that enacted an additional 3% income tax on anyone making over $200,000.

In reply to by El Vaquero

El Vaquero Nom de Guerre Thu, 11/23/2017 - 13:12 Permalink

We killed the one here before it even made it out of committee.  People showed up and testified with rifles slung and told the legislature outright that they'd ignore the law.  AFAIK, the elected sheriffs in my state were unanimously against the bill, with a few making 6-8 hour drives just to tell the legislature to bugger off.  If not unanimously against, it was only one or two who merely kept quiet.  

In reply to by Nom de Guerre

Overfed El Vaquero Thu, 11/23/2017 - 13:35 Permalink

Bloomturd, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and a few other rich n'er do wells bought our initiatiave process here in the WA portion of FEMA Region X and foisted "universal background checks" (registration) upon us. About 50% of gun people totally ignore it, about 30% follow it fearfully, and the rest sometimes obey and sometimes don't.Worthless, shitty, poorly written, virtually unenforceable, and completely ineffective at its stated purpose. It is however, a good registration scheme. People like 'turd, Gates, Allen, et., al. can always count on the average voter being too stupid to breathe.

In reply to by El Vaquero

El Vaquero Zero-Hegemon Thu, 11/23/2017 - 16:10 Permalink

This is how fucked the law was:  The way it defined "transfer" did not distinguish between me lending a friend a rifle, or my friend giving my rifle back to me.  If you wanted to lend a firearm to a person for 5 or fewer days, no background check was needed.  However, if the person accepting the transfer was going to keep the firearm for more than five days, the law would have required a background check, even if you were just lending it out.   Scenario:  I go out hunting with a friend.  I kill my elk, and he breaks the optics on his rifle.  I want to sit back and drink beer at camp, but tell him to use my rifle.  He takes my rifle, drives out and 30 minutes later has an elk, and is back at camp another hour after that with my rifle.  1 1/2 hours means that no background check would have been needed, however, when he transferred it back to me, I would need to go through a background check because I am going to keep the rifle for more than five days.  Because it's my fucking rifle.  

In reply to by Zero-Hegemon

Yog Soggoth house biscuit Thu, 11/23/2017 - 16:19 Permalink

That was taught to me when I was 5. What goes up must come down. That is why you don't shoot into the air. I always thought duck hunters were dumb for that. If I wanted a duck, I would go somewhere there a lot of ducks and plink his head off in the water. You can actually knock them out with a wristrocket at the park in my town, depending on the gator situation. Dad got one with a hand thrown rock at the library, but he has been known to throw rocks at things he did not want around the house for a lifetime of practice.

In reply to by house biscuit

SoDamnMad Overfed Thu, 11/23/2017 - 12:59 Permalink

I am a gun control freak. I was a good boy and locked up all my guns then wrapped the safe with a boat chain. Trouble was I damn near had a heart attack chasing that darn turkey all around the yard before I tackled him and wrung his neck. Would have been easier to just shoot him. But it ws for the children.

In reply to by Overfed