This Mom Just Shut Down The Entire NRA With One BRILLIANT Remark

Amidst the chaos of two black men being shot to death by cops and the subsequent sniper attack in Dallas on the city’s police officers, you have to wade through a lot of social media muck to find anything worth reading. Most of it is the usual finger-pointing, mud-slinging blame game that helps no one and accomplishes nothing. We were lucky enough, though, to come across one gem so rare that we couldn’t help but share with all of you.

The comment was left under this meme posted by Occupy Democrats earlier today on Facebook.


Occupy Democrats fan Katherine Arvisais responded perfectly to the very true fact that NRA rhetoric is at least partly to blame for this incident when she wrote the following:

The NRA pushed for Americans to have guns to fight a tyrannical government, and they are getting it, just not in the way they imagined.

When we decide to protect an “individuals” right to bear arms, in order to defend themselves from tyrannical forces, we have no control over what represents tyranny to the individual. That’s the thing about Constitutional rights, they also apply to people we disagree with just as much as they apply to those we do agree with. If every person has the right to carry firearms that includes, mentally ill, suspected terrorists, white supremacists, anarchists, and potentially future cop killers. Most are often just law abiding citizens exercising their right to bear arms until the exact moment they pull the trigger in a unjustifiable scenario. What concerns me is that each and every one of them now gets to decide what is and what isn’t a true threat to their personal civil rights. It seems like it would be common sense to most that shooting innocent civilians or attacking police is wrong but obviously many people in our country don’t share that view and we have now entered a time where people feel they have no recourse other than turning to violence. That’s how we end up with a tragedy like what happened in Dallas. The NRA pushed this rhetoric but apparently they never considered who would take up the call to defend themselves from a undefined oppressive force.

The only difference between a terrorist and a self perceived revolutionary is point of view and we are responsible for arming both sides.

Thank you so much for that bit of genius, Katherine! We couldn’t have said it any better ourselves — so we didn’t even try.

Written By
More from Paige Ellis

WATCH: Trump Has Officially Lost His Mind: Uses Hitler’s Favorite Song As His Entrance Music (VIDEO)

People who don't support Donald Trump have several ways to describe him....
Read More
  • John

    We have elections to change government. This is a RW “heroic” fantasy. Take up arms against the government and you are seditious like John Brown or Bundy.

    • Trenton Eledge

      The Constitution doesn’t give the right to arm communist to overthrow our government, or islamic extremist to establish sharia law, or any other groups opposed to our liberties. The person writing the article should know the difference. I guess we do Iive in a very dumb down society. I suppose I’m asking too much.

      • GOPocalypse Admin

        You gave several fine examples of what the Constitution does not define as “tyranny.” Now tell us what tyranny is exactly.

        • John

          Given the fact that our founding fathers went to war over a 13% tax rate, their government marching to disarm them, the enforcement of ex post facto laws, and various forms of customs racketeering and corruption; I’d say what constitutes tyranny in their own mind is pretty damned clear in their words and their writings. You people are idiots of the highest magnitude. This piece of human debris…this assassin didn’t care anything about the tyranny of government. If he did, he would’ve made a move to go after the politicians in Washington DC. Local police have zero control of what the law is or isn’t and are only tasked with enforcing the law that the government passes. The stupid argument being put forth here, which is “the NRA says arms are for taking out a tyrannical government” and using that statement to justify murdering police officers would be the same thing as getting pissed off about high airline costs and flying to the place where planes are made and killing the janitor in the building. Not only does the writer (I won’t dignify this incoherent rambling as being an “author”) of this ridiculous little hit piece have the IQ of a houseplant, but clearly wasn’t paying attention in whatever junior college’s night class she attended when it was explained on how to draw literary parallels and inferences or how to draw a simple analogy. Holy shit, the stupid must be contagious. I can’t even stop myself from writing a horrible, run-on sentence when answering this retarditity.

  • Gpearl

    I think it shows how dangerous liberal logic is…shooting cops that are doing their job is not rising up against the government, Rising up against the government is when elected officials commit unlawful acts like Hillary giving valuable secrets away to increase the balance of her bank account and then lying under oath about it. Obama letting in millions of illegal immigrants and paying for their livelihood with American tax dollars, Targeting innocent Americans using the IRS, NSA spying on Americans, illegal voting, cancelling out American’s legal votes, Arming terrorists, conspiring with the media to hide information or give wrong information to the public. That is a tyrannical government, not shooting innocent cops.

    • GOPocalypse Admin

      What she’s saying is that what one person considers “rising up against tyranny” sounds insane to someone else, because it is a SUBJECTIVE concept. We understand that you don’t think this terrible act is defined in that way, and neither do we, but SOME people do — and those same people have access to guns because the NRA thinks background checks and mental health evaluations are infringing on the “right to bear arms.”

      Not sure how this simple concept is going right over your head.

      And for the record, we think the danger of conservative logic is that there seems to be NONE at all.

    • Nola

      You got all that right.

  • Trenton Eledge

    That’s a BS comment from the “mom”. We have an excellent litmus test as to what is tyrannical. It’s called the Constitution. That is our rule of law. When I joined the military I swore to defend the Constitution. Not some narcissistic politician. This “moms” comment would have some validity if we were anarchist. What we saw in Dallas was anarchy not democracy. We have a document that defines rule of law. The Second Amendment guarantees us the right to defend against those who oppose the Constitution.

    • GOPocalypse Admin

      Define tyranny as something other than a concept then. We’ll wait.

    • Katherine

      I am that “Mom” and I am also proudly married to a Marine combat vet. I never said you as a military member nor any government agency were tyrannical forces. I also believe I made a point to include anarchists in my analogy of the different type of dangerous people that can misconstrue our constitutional rights to justify their madness. Obviously what happened in Dallas was unjustifiable. No one is defending the shooter. I think you missed the entire concept. Thank you for your service.

  • WuzYoungOnceToo

    That you think something so idiotic is “brilliant ” should cause you a lifetime of embarrassment. Of course, that assumes you’re bright enough to feel embarrassment…which doesn’t appear likely.

  • Jill Herendeen

    Pfft. The snipers were government agents; this was a false flag—see the Corbett Report for explanation.

  • Chris Bergen

    Ever heard of the III%. That’s all that was needed to take down the LAST tyrannical gov’t…

  • John F

    Tell it to those recalcitrant non-conformists at Wounded Knee who didn’t want to be disarmed and shipped off to concentration camps. (and the government gave out 20 of it’s highest commendations for valour to soldiers there that day).

    Some think it might have been just, if a lot of armed citizens had been among the anti-war protesters at Kent State. They might not have made any difference, might have been mown down along with the unarmed students. Do you cheer the government agents and agree that they all get away scott-free?

    By your standards, the rebels in Athens/Etowah Tennessee in 1946 should have been mown down, if the governor had responded to requests to send in the national Guard. Were those people wrong to take up arms against law enforcement?

    Do you even know what restrictions we place on gun ownership for mental illness? Anyone who’s ever been involuntarily committed or adjudicated as unfit to stand trial or give testimony or handle their own affairs (that word “adjudicated” is important, well get back to it)

    What more? Any outpatient treatment for mental health issues? That disarms a lot of people right there. We already practically disarm all veterans for PTSD (fine reward that). Rape victims, assault or domestic violence victims (Maybe the very ones we should be enabling and assisting to be armed. No? Read the case of Carol Bowne and get back to us on “common sense reasonable safety regulations”.)

    One thing all the mad mass shooters had in common was mind-altering prescription medications. Do we prohibit for life, anyone treated for depression, anxiety, etc? We give things which are also used for anti-psychotics for reasons other than psychosis, but just to be safe, eh?

    At what point does a medical practitioner become criminally liable for failing to report any such treatment?

    Is this where you want to take us?

    Don’t just prattle on about mental illness: Give specifics.

    You do your case in by mentioning “suspected terrorists”.

    If you want those no-due-process lists to do anything but go away, you disqualify yourself from having useful to say about society or rule of law or civilization & democracy. Please don’t speak as if you know what’s best, don’t vote For the childrens’ sake I hope you don’t raise or sire children.

    BTW, apropos to not much: I’m probably more “let” than you or just about anyone you know Detest just about everything the GOP claims to stand for. My feelings on social justice and egalitarian democracy inform my thoughts on armed citizens, and are informed in turn.