Tag Archives: National Rifle Association

Virginia Democrat wishes Ebola on the NRA

File this in the now-voluminous “Liberals Are Such Nice People” folder.

Mike Dickinson1

See the bald, fat guy with the double chin in the photo above?

He’s Mike Dickinson, a Democrat running for Congress from Richmond, Virginia.

In his “Dickinson For Congress” Twitter bio, he describes himself as:

Left wing liberal and soon to be radio host. Published in Hustler. Seen on Fox news. Written about in major media.

He’s proud to be published in the hard porn mag, Hustler. Good grief.

Hey, Dickinson! You can add this FOTM post to your “written about in major media” bio.

Douglas Barclay reports for Rare that on Aug. 31, 2014, the warm-and-fuzzy oh-so-tolerant “left wing liberal” Dickinson sent out this tweet to his 2,285 Twitter followers, wishing that members of the National Rifle Association be infected with the deadly Ebola virus that has a fatality rate of 60-90%:

Dear god [sic]. Please use Ebola to infect the @NRA and it’s [sic] various members. For they are A (sic) true virus and true terrorists in America.

Mike Dickinson

Not only is the man vicious, he’s also a grammar idiot.

Note to Mike Dickinson:

It’s “its,” not “it’s”!

Earlier this July, dirty-old-man Dickinson had made headlines for offering money for nude photos of 19-year-old Kendall Jones, the Texan cheerleader who hunts exotic wild animals.

Dickinson is not endorsed by the Democrat Party.

H/t Clash Daily

See also these other warm-and-fuzzy oh-so-peaceful leftwing liberals:


Fl. Gov. Rick Scott Signs 5 Pro Gun Bills Into Law.

Folks I knew there was a reason I liked living in Fla. I knew it wasn’t the blast furnace heat for the next 7 months.


Florida governor signs five pro-gun measures into law, including ‘Pop Tart’ and ‘Warning Shot’ bills


Gov. Rick Scott approved several pro-gun bills Friday that covered everything from clarifying use of force to ending insurance discrimination against gun owners.

Gov. Rick Scott (Photo credit: AP)

Gov. Rick Scott (Photo credit: AP)

“We have a solid, pro-gun governor who strongly supports the Second Amendment and these are all common sense pieces of legislation with a demonstrated need,” Marion Hammer, president of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida and past president of the National Rifle Association, explained to Guns.com in April.

One of the most controversial of the pack was HB89, which changes the interpretation of the threatened use of force. It will make it legal in the state for one to effectively display a weapon in a self-defense situation if proper justifications are met.

The bill was originally crafted after Marissa Alexander, a South Florida mother, was sentenced to a 20-year mandatory sentence in 2012 for firing a handgun during a domestic dispute as a consequence of the state’s “10-20-life” laws.

Commonly called the “Warning Shot” bill in the media, gun-rights advocates in Florida take exception to that classification.

“HB89 is not about warning shots,” said Hammer to Guns.com Friday. “HB89 is about stopping abusive prosecutors from charging people with aggravated assault for defending themselves against an attacker.”

“Self-defense is not a crime,” the NRA icon continued.  “Self-defense is a constitutional right and some Florida prosecutors have been violating those rights. Whether you display a firearm or discharge a firearm to stop an attacker, it is still self-defense. You shouldn’t be forced to shoot an attacker to have the protection of the law. This bill tells prosecutors to stop treating victims like criminals and stop treating criminals like victims.”

The second new law started as HB255/ SB424 and is designed to stop discriminatory insurance practices against firearms owners. The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation already polices this type of discrimination, but the law adds more avenues to protect consumers

The important change is that this law will allow individuals to sue companies directly if they feel they are discriminated against, i.e. their policy was canceled or denied due to a firearms collection.

Next, HB 7029 or “the Pop Tart bill” loosens the zero tolerance guidelines for educators and students in terms of simulated gunplay. The new law is a response to an incident last year in which an elementary-school student was suspendedfor chewing a breakfast pastry into the vague shape of a firearm.

“Anyone that believed that a 5-year-old child should be suspended from school for pointing a finger and going ‘bang bang’ has some serious problems, yet that’s been going on around the country,” Hammer said of HB 7029. “Zero tolerance doesn’t mean traumatizing young children for being children when they play.”

Read The rest here at Guns.com


Calif high school forbids student from wearing NRA t-shirt

NRA t-shirtHaley Bullwinkle and her banned NRA t-shirt

Did you know that the National Rifle Association — which educates Americans in gun safety and defends our constitutional Second Amendment right —  is “offensive,” “violent” and “divisive”?

Awr Hawkins reports for Breitbart.com, Oct. 3, 2013, that a female student at Canyon High School in Anaheim Hills, California, was ordered to change out of her t-shirt because it promoted the NRA.

According to CBS Los Angeles, Haley Bullwinkle said she was sent to the principal’s office in September “for violating the school’s dress code that forbids offensive, violent, or divisive clothing.”

The “offensive” shirt was a gift from Bullwinkle’s father, which he gave her after he became a member of the NRA.

The shirt “shows a buck, an American flag, and a hunter’s silhouette.” Under this is inscribed: “National Rifle Association of America: Protecting America’s Traditions Since 1871.”

When Bullwinkle’s father contacted school principal Kimberly Fricker for an explanation, she told him the shirt violated code because it had an image of a gun on it. In response, Bullwinkle’s father has retained an attorney, citing the fact that the drill team twirls fake guns in their performances.

Her father also cited the fact that the school’s “mascot is a Comanche,” saying: “If you consider… the image of the hunter to be offensive, certainly there are groups that would consider the Comanche Indian Chief [mascot] to be offensive.”

ComanchesHere’s contact info for your protests:

kimberly frickerKimberly Fricker (l); Michael Christensen (r)

Canyon High School Principal
Kimberly Fricker
220 S. Imperial Hwy.
Anaheim, CA 92807
(714) 532-8000
Email: OUSD@orangeusd.org
You can also leave a message/comment on CHS’s webpage. Click here.

CHS is in the Orange School District:

Michael L. Christensen, Superintendent of Schools
Email: superintendent@orangeusd.org

UPDATE (Oct. 4, 2013):

The principal, Kimberly Fricker, has backed off. The girl’s mom, Stephanie Bullwinke, said she got a call from Fricker yesterday, saying Haley can wear her shirt: “She [Fricker] was very, very apologetic. She said they’re definitely going to be talking to the staff, training their staff on what is appropriate conduct and what is not.”

I have no doubt both the negative publicity (thanks to bloggers!) and the threat of a lawsuit led Fricker to change her mind.


How to make a lifelong NRA member

Do you remember DCG’s post of March 2, 2013, “Student suspended for ‘gun-shaped’ pastry“?

8-year-old Josh Welch, a second-grader at Park Elementary School in Baltimore, Maryland, was suspended from school for two days because he bit his Pop-Tart breakfast pastry into a shape that his teacher thought looked like a gun.

Welch said he was trying to nibble his strawberry snack into a mountain. But when his teacher saw what he had done, the boy says she got ‘pretty mad’ and he knew he was ‘in big trouble.’ Josh’s dad was called by the school and  informed that his son had been suspended for two days.

The school even sent home a letter with every student informing parents that “A student used food to make an inappropriate gesture” and has offered counseling to the students, just in case they were traumatized by the pastry gun.

And now here’s the rest of the story!

Pistol pastry perp

Pistol pastry perp

James Lunt reports for Reuters, May 30, 2013, that the boy’s lawyer said that Josh has been given a $550 Junior Life Membership in the National Rifle Association by a state legislator who heard about Josh Welch’s suspension.

“I was embarrassed that my county (Anne Arundel County) would do that to him,” said Nicholaus Kipke, leader of the Republican minority in the lower house of the Maryland legislature. He presented the gift to the second-grader Wednesday night.

The boy’s lawyer, Robin Ficker, said he is appealing the two-day school suspension that started on March 1. In the appeal, Ficker included pictures of the U.S. states of Idaho and Florida because “they look more like guns than Josh’s Pop-Tart.”

The Anne Arundel County Public Schools spokesman, Bob Mosier, declined to comment on the status of the appeal.

Ficker said the NRA membership gift was a great idea for the boy, who “is a good kid, a little rambunctious,” because it would teach him proper handling of firearms.

Here’s contact info for the school:

Sandy Blondell

Sandy Blondell

Park Elementary
201 E. 11th Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21225
Ph: (410)222-6593
Fax: (410)222-6596

Principal: Mrs. Sandy Blondell (pic left)


Wear A Shirt With A Gun Picture To School and Get Suspended And Go To Jail…Say What?



Apr. 19, 2013 1:38pm Liz Klimas   From the Blaze.com

An eighth grade student from West Virginia has been arrested, suspended and faces charges for wearing an NRA T-shirt with the image of a firearm and the words “Protect Your Right” printed on it to school.


WOWK-TV reported Jared Marcum saying he never thought there would be a problem with his pro-Second Amendment apparel.

I never thought it would go this far because honestly I don’t see a problem with this. There shouldn’t be a problem with this,” Marcum told WOWK-TV.

Police confirmed that Marcum had been arrested and faced charges of obstruction and disturbing the education process after getting into an argument over the shirt with a teacher at Logan Middle School, which is south of Charleston.

Logan Middle School’s policy regarding dress states:

A student will not dress or groom in a manner that disrupts the educational process or is detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of others. A student will not dress in a manner that is distractive or indecent, to the extent that it interferes with the teaching and learning process, including wearing any apparel that displays or promotes any drug-, alcohol- or tobacco-related product that is prohibited in school buildings, on school grounds, in school-leased or owned vehicles, and at all school-affiliated functions.

 (Nope, nothing about guns there)

The student’s father, Allen Lardieri, told WOWK that the shirt didn’t violate this policy, nor did his son become aggressive when confronted about it.


I will go to the ends of the earth, I will call people, I will write letters, I will do everything in the legal realm to make sure this does not happen again,” Lardieri said.


U. of Rhode Island professor calls for the death of NRA chief

A professor of a taxpayer-funded state university is calling for National Rifle Association’s (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre to be killed.

The professor is Erik Loomis (photo below), who’s an assistant professor of history at the University of Rhode Island (URI).

Erik Loomis1

Oliver Darcy reports for Campus Reform, Dec. 17, 2012, that in the wake of Adam Lanza’s killing of 20 children and 6 adults in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Professor Loomis tweeted that “ the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children.” Loomis then called the NRA “a terrorist organization” and declared that he “want[s] Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick.”

His tweets are now erased.

Thomas Lifson writes in American Thinker, Dec. 18, 2012, that Loomis  received his PhD in history from the University of New Mexico in 2008, and has a history of violent rhetoric directed against conservatives. In March of this year, in an essay ironically titled, “Are Conservatives Any Crazier Today Than 50 Years Ago?,” Loomis called for a “decades-long fight to the death” against conservatives as America’s “only hope.”

Oddly, the hypocrisy and irony of an anti-gun prof calling for the assassination of the CEO of a pro-gun organization is lost on the professor. But that is because, as Lifson observes, Erik Loomis is projecting his own violent impulses onto conservatives.

According to URI’s website, all members of the university community pledge to help foster an “inclusive environment recognizing and respecting diversity.” But one of its faculty clearly does not abide by the university’s pledge. If Professor Loomis is so venomous as to publicly call for the death (“head on a stick”) of the CEO of an organization he disapproves, imagine how Loomis treats his students who are conservative and/or pro-Second Amendment.

H/t FOTM’s Anon.

I tried to find contact information for Loomis and the president of the U. of Rhode Island, David M. Dooley. But I cannot access the University of Rhode Island’s (URI) website http://www.uri.edu, although there is nothing wrong with my computer or my high-speed Internet connection. But information can be found from other public sources (Rhode Island White Pages and Spokeo):

Erik Loomis
19 Amity St, Apt 2
Providence, RI 02908
(401) 437-6598


Contact info. for David Dooley, President, U. of Rhode Island:

Dooley issued this statement:

December 18, 2012
University Community:

The University of Rhode Island does not condone acts or threats of violence. These remarks do not reflect the views of the institution and Erik Loomis does not speak on behalf of the University. The University is committed to fostering a safe, inclusive and equitable culture that aspires to promote positive change.

Dr. David M. Dooley
University of Rhode Island

Wow! That statement sure makes everything all okay now. [Snark]

H/t my bud Mark S. McGrew for the Update!


Eight professors have joined together to issue a statement in support of University of Rhode Island assistant professor Erik Loomis, who last week tweeted that he wanted NRA executive vice president ”Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick.”

The authors of the statement, posted on the blog Crooked Timber, defend Loomis’ tweet as an example of metaphor and say their defense was “pulled together on an emergency basis” — perhaps explaining why distinguished academics would cite the Urban Dictionary as their source in explaining what “head on a stick” means, as well as their omission of his retweets of other violent metaphors wishing for those who support arming teachers to be “beaten to death” and Dick Morris to be hunted down and skinned for breakfast.

Nevertheless, Loomis has found defenders in academia, who worry that “his lack of tenure makes him vulnerable,” a state of affairs the rest of us who don’t enjoy the defense of “academic freedom” — that is, ”scholars’ freedom independently to express views (even intemperate ones) on topics of public importance” — face every day while arguing our beliefs in the public sphere. The fact that Loomis’ tweets seemingly had nothing to do with his teaching or his field of study further stretches the idea that academics should enjoy special protection from criticism. Meanwhile, the authors of Loomis’ defense call on university administrators to “affirm … the protections of the First Amendment” while overlooking a call for the head of a proponent of the Second Amendment.

Source: Twitchy

We are insane if we sign the UN Arms Trade gun control treaty

Ever heard of the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)?

How about the UN gun control treaty? — which is what the ATT is really about.

As Patrick Goodenough recounts for CNS News, July 5, 2012, the Obama administration is taking part in month-long negotiations at UN headquarters aimed at finalizing the treaty, with lobbyists lined up on opposing sides. Although the Bush administration in 2006 cast the lone negative vote when 153 nations passed a U.N. General Assembly resolution that began the treaty-drafting process, Obama and Hillary Clinton reversed that position in 2009 by supporting the ATT.

Supporters say the treaty will save millions of lives. Despite UN’s insistence that the ATT will have no impact on civilian gun ownership, opponents of the treaty argue that it will restrict our Second Amendment rights at home and U.S. arms sales policies abroad.

So what is the truth? Is the Arms Trade Treaty a sneaky way to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights by imposing gun control on American citizens?

This much we know:

1. The GOP is against the treaty. In a letter to Obama and Hillary, 130 Republican lawmakers warned that they would oppose the appropriation or authorization of any taxpayer money to implement a “flawed” treaty. Their reasons are that the ATT could negatively affect U.S. security, foreign policy and economic interests – as well as Americans’ constitutional rights. The letter says: “The ATT must not accept that free democracies and totalitarian regimes have the same right to conduct arms transfers: this is a dangerous piece of moral equivalence. Moreover, the ATT must not impose criteria for determining the permissibility of arms transfers that are vague, easily politicized, and readily manipulated,” referring in particular to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and Israel. “Washington is the only capital that now sells weapons to Taipei, aiding its defense against Beijing’s unprecedented arms buildup,” Heritage Foundation senior fellow Peter Brookes wrote in an op-ed. “China would love to cut off those sales.”

2. Second Amendment advocacy groups are adamantly opposed to the treaty, which Gun Owners of America calls “a backdoor attempt by the Obama administration to impose radical gun control on America citizens.” National Rifle Association vice-president Wayne LaPierre accused Obama of working behind the scenes with the U.N. on a “treaty that could effectively ban or severely restrict civilian ownership of firearms worldwide.”

3. The Obama administration vows it will uphold and safeguard the Second Amendment: “There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.” Abroad, the U.S. will oppose any provisions that would “unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.” Further, the administration pledges not to accept a treaty that covers ammunition or explosives — which Britain, France, and Sweden want — or one that establishes an international enforcement body, which is wanted by a powerful coalition of non-governmental organizations including Amnesty International and Oxfam.

Whom to believe?

As always, the answer is in the primary source document — the proposed UN Arms Trade Treaty itself. Here are the important sections from the treaty which I am rendering as answers to questions. All words, phrases and sentences between quotation marks (“…”) are in and from the treaty. Word in italics colored pink are my editorial comments. (You can read the treaty for yourself, here.)

1. What is the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty?

“a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, on a step-by-step basis among all States Members of the United Nations.”

2. What are the treaty’s purpose and objectives?

“This Treaty will seek to:
1. Promote the goals and objectives of the United Nations Charter;
2. Establish the highest possible common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms;
3. Prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit transfer, illicit production and illicit brokering of conventional arms and their diversion into the illicit market, including for use in transnational organized crime and terrorism; [Hmm, wasn’t this exactly what Obama’s Fast & Furious gunrunning-to- Mexican-crimelords operation about?]
4. Contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability by preventing international transfers of conventional arms that contribute to or facilitate: human suffering, serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, violations of United Nations Security Council sanctions and arms embargoes and other international obligations, armed conflict, the displacement of people, transnational organized crime, and terrorist acts, and thereby undermine peace, reconciliation, safety, security, stability and sustainable social and economic development;
5. Promote transparency and accountability in import, export, and transfers of conventional arms;
6. Be universal in its application.”

3. How does the treaty define “conventional arms”?

“For the purposes of this Treaty, conventional arms shall include any items that fall within the following categories:
(a) Tanks;
(b) Military vehicles;
(c) Artillery systems;
(d) Military aircraft (manned or unmanned);
(e) Military helicopters (manned or unmanned);
(f) Naval vessels (surface and submarine vessels armed or equipped for
military use);
(g) Missiles and missile systems (guided or unguided);
(h) Small arms;
(i) Light weapons;
(j) Ammunition for use with weapons referred to in paragraphs (a) to (i);
(k) Parts or components specially and exclusively designed for any of the categories set out in paragraphs (a) to (j);
(l) Technology and equipment specially and exclusively designed and used to develop, manufacture or maintain any of the items in the categories set out in paragraphs (a) to (k).”

4. If the Obama administration signs the treaty, what would be the United States’ obligations?

“1. A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms from, to or through territories under its jurisdiction if the transfer would violate any measure adopted by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.
2. A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms from, to or through territories under its jurisdiction if the transfer violates any of its other relevant international, regional or subregional obligations or commitments.
A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms if there is a substantial risk that those conventional arms would:
1. Be used in a manner that would seriously undermine peace and security or provoke, prolong or aggravate internal, regional, subregional or international instability.
2. Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law.
3. Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law.
4. Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international criminal law, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
5. Seriously impair poverty reduction and socio-economic development or seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient State.
6. Be diverted to unauthorized end-users for use in a manner inconsistent with the principles, goals and objectives of the Treaty, taking into account the risk of corruption.
7. Be used in the commission of transnational organized crime as defined in the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.
8. Be used to support, encourage or perpetrate terrorist acts.”

5. How would the treaty be implemented?

“Each State Party shall take the necessary legislative and administrative measures, to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this Treaty.”

6. How would the treaty be enforced?

“1. Each State Party shall adopt legislation or other appropriate measures, including appropriate law enforcement and judicial mechanisms, to ensure its ability to enforce domestically the obligations of this Treaty and to prohibit the transfer of arms from any location under that State’s jurisdiction and control, unless authorized in accordance with the Treaty.
2. Each State Party shall establish effective penalties or other appropriate measures for violations of this Treaty by any entity under its jurisdiction and control. Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to provide for the investigation and prosecution of individuals and other entities for offences violating the Treaty and relevant national laws.”

7. How can a government or country withdraw from the treaty?

“1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.
2. A State Party may, by written notification addressed to the Depositary, withdraw from this Treaty. The withdrawal shall take effect one hundred and eighty days after the date of receipt of the notification, unless the notification specifies a later date.
3. A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this Treaty while it was a party to the Treaty, including any financial obligations.”


As you can read for yourself in the above, the UN Arms Trade Treaty will restrict American citizens’ free exercise of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment rights, because:

  • Handguns, shotguns, and rifles can be considered “small arms” and “light weapons”.
  • The Obama or a subsequent administration (if there will be one) can argue that American citizens’ ownership and use of handguns “seriously undermine peace and security or provoke, prolong or aggravate internal… instability.”
  • Under the treaty, the federal government is prohibited from authorizing “a transfer of conventional arms if there is a substantial risk that those conventional arms would…be used to support, encourage or perpetrate terrorist acts.” Do recall that a new study funded and approved by the Obama administration’s Department of Homeland Security identifies the following individuals as “domestic terrorists”:
  • Believe their “way of life” is under attack;
  • “Fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”;
  • “Anti-global”, that is, wary of the loss of American sovereignty;
  • “Suspicious of centralized federal authority”;
  • “Reverent of individual liberty”;
  • “Believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”
  • Opposed to abortion and “groups that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers”.

Last March Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) introduced legislation prohibiting any funds for negotiating an ATT that would restrict U.S. citizens’ Second Amendment rights. The bill has 19 co-sponsors, all Republicans.

To conclude, the UN Arms Trade Treaty is a serious threat to our Second Amendment rights. The Obama administration’s insistence that it doesn’t is most disingenuous, not to mention Obama’s Fast & Furious program belies the administration’s professed belief in the treaty’s high-minded purpose against illicit arms transfers.

We’d be insane to sign on to this treaty.

H/t Hardnox, Tina, Wendy.