Gun Fanatics Are Creeping My Facebook Profile

Mark Kessler poses with Uzis in an undated photo.

Mark Kessler poses with Uzis in an undated photo.

“Mark Kessler commented on my picture? Don’t know him, but the name rings a bell.”

It was just a Facebook notification that’s all. My profile is public, although I have my family and relationships set to private. Mark Kessler wasn’t on my friends list. So I clicked on his profile to see who he was and immediately saw why his name was familiar.

Kessler made a splash a while ago when he filmed himself spewing vitriol and bile at those who support gun control, while blasting away with a number of firearms. He would lose his job as Chief of Police in Gilberton, Pennsylvania, because of his ill-advised display of immature irresponsibility.

He then formed his own militia; scared the daylights out of residents in his hometown with intimidation tactics with them; then went off to protect America’s borders from child refugees; and recently made news with one of his members getting in the way of Border Patrol agents. His profile is a mosaic of anti-Obama rhetoric and More Guns propaganda. He and I have absolutely no connection. No mutual friends, no common Facebook groups.

Kessler has a full regiment of Facebook friends, 5,000 of them, and 18,000+ followers as well. So when he comments on stuff, it shows up in the newsfeeds of lots of like-minded individuals. Which begs the question; What was Mark Kessler doing on my profile?

Well, I write articles condemning gun lobbies, questioning their talking points, and have made the case for gun control many times. Even though I’m not a well known writer, the opposition to what I have had to say about gun violence has been enormous and immediate. I’ve had threats made on not only my life, but my young son’s as well.

One of many online threats from rabid gun nuts.

One of many online threats from rabid gun nuts.

Pro-gun lobby folks get to dish it out, but get outraged when you hand it right back to them. Apparently it’s perfectly fine for one of their own to threaten the life of an infant, but it’s not cool for me to expose this behavior.

Still, this was expected. Anyone on the Internet knows that the comments under an article, no matter the subject, are often filled with offensiveness and trollage. And when it comes to guns, those who favor gun lobbies like to attack en masse. There are Facebook pages devoted to sending swarms of their followers to virtually shout down posts and pieces they don’t like.

I recently published a piece heavily critical of the NRA. As per usual, hateful messages got sent, attacks were made on Twitter, and some pro-gun lobby pages posted it, commanding their followers to “sic ‘em!” They may do the same with this piece.

But back to Kessler. You’re probably figuring that he tracked the anti-NRA piece back to my profile. He attacked me underneath where I had posted it, obviously, there to unleash his anti-responsibility tirades, right? This has happened to me before after all. I’ve had to block many people for doing just that in the past. Were this but the latest case, I would not have given it a second thought.

That’s not what Kessler did. Instead he commented on a picture of my wife and son. In the image they are in the distance, and the caption says, “As deer look on and the circling hawk calls out, Liam, intrepid explorer, leads an expedition into the Catskills.”

Kessler commented underneath the photo with, “You say theirs deer in them woods? Well golly is a gonna get my gun and Wes gonna eat good tonight’s yeeeeeehawwwweee” (sic). He then liked his own comment.


Comment from Mark Kessler (click to view full-size)

This means Mark Kessler followed an article I wrote to my profile. It was a piece he didn’t like about a subject he infamously very zealously supports. But instead of commenting on the piece, he scrolled down my profile until he found a picture of my family so he could say something under that.

No, he didn’t specifically say anything threatening. He’s smart enough not to try anything like that, regardless of the impression his poor spelling and grammar gives. He’s currently doing damage control from the scuffle with Border Patrol Agents, after all. I suppose it’s possible that Kessler just searches random names on Facebook and makes bizarre comments on pictures of families, but it’s highly unlikely.

It’s also possible that he meant this as some sort of joke. After all, if your wife and son are walking into some woods that they’ve seen deer in, by all means start talking about shooting into those woods.

Pretty funny, right? What a laugh riot this guy is. I’m sure those Border Protection Agents thought the same thing.

What sticks in the craw is not just that Kessler felt the need to comment about getting his gun on a picture of my family, but that when I went to his profile to see who he was, he had recently “liked” a company my wife worked for.

Engel Entertainment is not a widely visited Facebook page. It’s well under 1,000 likes, and not very active. But my wife had it listed on her “About Me” section of her Facebook profile as her workplace. She doesn’t work there anymore, she’s freelance, but she hadn’t updated her employer in a while, and Engel was listed as where she works.

When I noticed Kessler commented on our picture, it was 7 minutes after he had done so. When I checked out his profile, I noticed he had listed Engel Entertainment as a “like” 3 minutes previously. There’s the part that bugged me.


Mark Kessler came to my profile, checked it out, found a picture with my family to comment about his guns underneath of, and then followed a tag to my wife’s profile where he checked her out too. He then decided to follow a page she had listed as her work. Kinda hard to rule that out as coincidence.

Kessler did not find me randomly, he came looking for me. He stalked my profile, then creeped my wife’s and he must have known I would then click on his profile back. After all, some random stranger makes a bizarre statement on a picture of your family, you’re going to try and find out who that is, right? He’s a former cop. He can’t be that unaware of his actions.

And, again, he didn’t actually do anything legally wrong. He didn’t insult anyone, didn’t overtly threaten us, and the picture I’d posted was public. What he did do was find a way to work gun into a comment about my family, phrased in such a way that he could play it off as innocuous or in jest when called on it. Even though we have no connection of familiarity, he has a history of attempting to intimidate those with different opinions, and he is infamous for saying those who hold opinions such as mine should “fuckin’ die” after we “take it in the ass,” apparently.

As a friend put it, “Looks like he’s marking you, like a dog pissing to mark his territory.” That analogy works as well as any. Kessler was letting me know he’s noticed me. Certainly, with his remarks potentially showing up in the feeds of over 20,000, had he gotten vitriolic underneath the picture itself, trollage would have seriously escalated.

I’ve read a lot of comics in my life. One of my favorite stories was Green Lantern teaming up with Batman. The two are total opposites, one is about light, the other about darkness. Lantern advocates conquering fear, the Dark Knight seeks to instill it. When Batman told GL to dampen his light, the response was, “No, I want my enemies to see me. That way they charge me and nobody else.

That’s the way I wanted it to be. You want to oppose what I have to say, that is your right. If you have a legible point, express it, but once the insults, falsehoods, and ad hominems begin to fly, you get stepped over. But leave my family out of it.

Lt. Col. Robert Bateman wrote articles for Esquire criticizing gun lobby rhetoric. He was swarmed with gun advocates online, threatening both him and his family. It did not stop him, but it was jarring to see. A friend of mine who has worked in collusion with Moms Demand Action for Gunsense in America has warned me to lock down my Facebook profile to protect my family. Mark Kessler just showed why she’s right to say so.

Back to superheroes briefly. In The Dark Knight Rises, Batman tells John Blake that he should wear a mask. Blake’s response was to say he wasn’t afraid, to which he was answered with, “The mask isn’t for you, it’s to protect the people you care about.

I now understand why some of my colleagues are so protective of their privacy. I eschewed a pen name because I didn’t want those I was speaking out against to think I was afraid of them. But that’s not what a pseudonym is about. It’s to keep your friends and family removed from harassment.

As I have found out in the past, gun lobbyists will stoop to personal attacks, insults, troll swarms, and threats against not only me, but my family. It’s going to get worse as I continue. The opposition to what I have said so far has been astronomical, and at the time of this writing, it’s only been ten months since I’ve been doing this.

But a funny thing I’ve noticed is my opposition looks more and more familiar each time. It’s usually the same profiles over and over and over again, on Facebook to Twitter, from site to site, bringing out the same specious arguments and insults and rolling out a never-ending carousel of “Nuh-UH!” It’s not that my opposition is so vast, it’s merely that they are so persistent. They use the volume of their opinion to mask the lack of volume in their numbers, compared to the rest of us.

That tells me this message inspires its opponents with such fear and hatred that they will attempt to virtually intimidate me away from saying it. Kessler sure is known for that. No other issue I have written about inspires this kind of zealous opposition.

Mark Kessler poses with a high capacity magazine.

Mark Kessler poses with a high capacity magazine.

It also tells me I need to think about how I proceed. Mark Kessler, intentionally or not, has warned me that my family will be targets along with me. The kind of people who feel so strongly about their Molon Labe rhetoric will have no issues harassing my wife. This confirms their lack of morality and character, but that’s no comfort if my family will be attacked.

So a discussion needs to be had. I have spoken previously to my wife about the issue, and now I have to do so again, and possibly reach out to everyone else in my family as well. They need to be warned as to what I might be getting them into, intentionally or not. There might be strained relations as a result.

As for the picture, it was the only one Kessler could have commented on that included my wife and son. I had checked in with Facebook on my phone the previous week and included the picture to amuse our family. It posted publicly instead of privately, and he took that opening.

In future, I need to be careful about that. I am no longer free to post whatever I want on Facebook, due to concerns about possible reprisals upon my family from what I’ve said. Mmm, but I’m the bully, coming to take away others’ freedoms. Sure, whatever.

So, stalk me online and creep my profile all you like. Attack me all you want. You’re doing so regardless.

Just know that if you go after my family it will only prove you are not responsible gun owners, ethically correct, or “real men.”

And this will confirm all over again that Americans are right to oppose you.

Chad R. MacDonald

Chad R. MacDonald has a degree in English Literature from Cape Breton University and subsequently received a full scholarship to AMDA in New York. He is a former security professional, a veteran of the hospitality industry, and experienced in administration and the arts. He loves baseball, hockey, marine photography, science, New York City, and his family.
He lives in Hell's Kitchen with his wife and son and their gigantic cat.
Chad also writes for,, and contributes at You can follow him on Twitter @ChadMac19 and on Facebook as well!


Facebook comments

  • Sandy Greer

    I understand the author’s concern. But Truth be told – It’s not just gun
    lobbyists (personal attacks, insults, troll swarms, threats) We’ve all seen them – any number of issues.

    People should be careful what they reveal of themselves online. I recently changed my photo to an avatar because I got unwelcome ‘fan’ mail. Stopped posting another site because I feared stalkers.

    I’ve seen posters here on FP demand info of others that – if given – would allow them to be found. Harassed them – when it was not forthcoming. Seen death threats issued to those who dare speak for conservatives here. So people need to be aware – right here on FP.

    Finally, who can forget the Clifton article awhile back – complaining he’d been blocked from Ted Nugent’s FB page. Apparently, Clifton had gone there – provoked a fight; harassed him – until Nugent blocked him. Whereupon we got an entire article on it. Just SMH

    Circumspection is required on the internet.

    • Pipercat

      Read his (all for that matter) pieces on “Quietmike.” It’s a cut above and you’ll notice the difference right off the bat.

      • Sandy Greer

        I did. And agree he’s a ‘cut above’. I think him a real wordsmith; wish he’d write more often for FP. I also read, with interest, comments on OM – also a cut above. But couldn’t help noticing the following responses to Opponents:

        >“John.” Say, what’s your last name?

        >“Anonymous,” because you are so brave to not even post
        your real name.

        >Too chickenshit to post your real name and photo, huh,

        ^^^It’s here in these comments, this article, as well. Left/Right – We ALL have a stake in respecting the right to Privacy for others. Not just for ourselves, and those like us – but for our Opponents, as well. Maybe especially there.

  • Laura Hurt

    I am very sorry you got drawn into that Chad, that’s horrible and must be sort of frightening too, to realize you scare them so bad that they are doing stuff like this 🙁

  • Shadow8088

    It’s amazing what the privacy features on facebook can block. If you can’t/won’t use them, don’t cry when people post to your page or on your pictures…

    • Pipercat

      Wednesday’s fallacy: Denying the antecedent!

    • Angela Walker

      Guess one can’t really be surprised that a person who tries to up his testosterone quotient with a user name like “Shadow8088” is also the kind of person who thinks FB privacy features are one hundred percent effective and likes to blame the victim.

      • Shadow8088

        That’s cute. I’ve had some version of this username for over 20 years and I have to say, that’s the first time I’ve actually been attacked for it.

        As to the FB privacy features, I’ve never had a problem with them once I set them to the level I desired. No one can post to my FB page unless I let them.. Do I think the dude creeping his and his wife’s FB page is creepy? Sure… However, I believe that Mr. MacDonald should have been proactive on his FB security policies. Especially considering the publicity he receives by writing articles for this website, let alone the fact that he’s a “former security professional.” Once you make information accessible on the internet, it’s there.. forever. Do I “blame the victim” for not protecting his private information in today’s internet? absolutely.

      • Bine646

        Its a public forum yet people are surprised when the public reaches out to them

      • Giuseppe

        “I’ve had some version of this username for over 20 years.” Well then my dear boy, it is time to grow up and pick an adult name.

      • Shadow8088

        The interwebz has spoken… let me rush right out and…. no.

    • theonlysaneone

      He doesnt seem to be crying about that crazy commenting on the pic he posted public. Its the crazy that took the time to find what he could about his family. Doing that makes this crazy unstable and dangerous. What makes matters worse is that there are like minded crazies out in this world. But hey…2ND AMENDMENT. They are coming after our guns…….crazy

      • Cemetery Girl

        The sickening thing is that a diligent person (which the level of activity described here is diligent) a person can obtaine information to access loved ones. This is a very scary prospect when you have children. No one wants a stranger approaching their child. While unlikely, you can’t be sure of the actions of a stranger, especially when they feel provoked by something you’ve said or done. I’m sickened by this. I’m all for debate, heated debate, and understand that differing opinions can lead to intense emotions. Family should never be brought into it.

    • Cemetery Girl

      It is so easy to forget to change a setting back. He admitted why a private photo displayed to the public. That kind of incident is so easy to have happen. Sadly, he really needs a seperate FB account for his private use and public use. Some will call it cowardly, but shielding your family comes first.

  • Kimberly B Stone

    Mark Kessler is a sick and dangerous sociopath. Stay clear of him.

  • SpeakingOutHere

    I have a FB page re: stopping/gun violence and illegally obtained weapons. Someone argued that I was against 2nd amendment…Gun owners… blah blah. I replied with facts about my page, posts, etc. Then I stated that people with illegally owned guns, committing crimes and murders do not have rights, and do not care about gun laws. The person could not get past their right to bear arms….they clearly were not able to think outside their box of wanting to own as many guns as they wanted. Their psychotic words really concern me. These types attack, twist words, bully, want everyone to believe and agree with their twisted, sick, agenda.

    • pwrserge

      If by your own admission, people with illegal guns committing crimes don’t care about laws… Why do you want to pass more laws that they won’t care about, but will turn average citizens into felons for no apparent reason. (i.e. Connecticut)

      Also, where do you get the idea that the federal government has any right to regulate firearms in any way given the 2nd and 10th amendment and the lack of any countervailing powers granted in the CotUS?

      • SpeakingOutHere

        I would like to see the current laws against weapons violators enforced ie: Bartley Fox….And increase fines and minimum sentences for these gangbangers and carjackers, robbers that are wreaking havoc, denying us the right to live in a peaceful safe society. They will CARE when their asses aren’t out on probation, and THEIR rights are reduced!

      • pwrserge

        Oh, on that I can wholeheartedly agree with you. But why focus on weapons instead of their actual crime? Assault is assault, attempted murder is attempted murder, surely the police don’t need easily amusable gun statutes to put away people who are already guilty of very serious crimes?

        For example, is somebody sells a gun to a known felon, the crime should be accessory to whatever crime that felon commits. The act of selling the gun itself is not the crime, it’s the fact that the seller does so knowing that the person who is getting the gun will abuse it. This would take a minor tweak in the facilitation statute and does not have to involve guns per-se. However, it would have the exact effect that gun control activists would claim to want.

        The issue right now is that we have gun laws that serve no legitimate purpose. (Suppressor, SBR, SBS, and machine-gun restrictions.) We have laws that practically are not being enforced. (Brady act prosecutions are counted barely in the double digits). We have regulations that were never passed by Congress but instead exist by presidential fiat (“sporting purpose” import bans on popular firearms).

        I think a nice hedge trimmer can be taken to the body of laws on guns in this country and both sides can still be happy. (Provided that the antis really do want “common sense” legislation and are not just incrementing their way to ban firearms for normal people.)

      • SpeakingOutHere

        I dont like the apathy, ignorance, and fear, people portray towards the problem of guns being sold to the criminals, who use illegal means to get weapons. And dishonest weapons dealers who are im the business for the $$. Honest people who want to own guns jabe a right to, and speak out. I dont like when accusations and comtempt are hurled at those of us JUST WANTING TO KEEP GUNS out of the hands of mainly young people, drug dealers, intent on murder, amd other acts of crime, with no self control, morals or good conscience. They run rampant in our cities because the system allows guns to be straw purchased, sold, smuggled. All states should have the same statutes to punish the lawbreakers. Focus on the criminal systemic violence… Not imposing more laws against honest citizens.

      • pwrserge

        I’m just pointing out that attacking the criminals from the gun supply side is an exercise in futility. It has not worked at any point in the past 80 years with increasing levels of restriction.

        On top of that, those measures have resulted in absurd barriers to normal citizens getting guns. My personal favorite examples are the 1994 assault weapon and magazine ban that was shown, buy the Department of Justice, to have no measurable effect on crime, the 1934 National Firearms Act restrictions on sort barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and suppressors (the last of which is completely useless to a criminal given that it’s a safety device), and the 1986 ban on civilian sales of new machine guns (which was a solution in search of a problem as no registered machine gun had been used in a violent crime by a civilian in almost half a century at that point).

        Do I think certain weapons can be registered? Sure, machine guns, destructive devices (ex. mortars, cannons, grenades, etc) can have a registration requirement as I can agree that they are more dangerous than the average firearm. (But note how these are never used in crimes despite their relative ease of contraction and availability.) Is registering grandpa’s hunting rifle really going to help solve crimes? If so, why has the registration database in Canada yielded absolutely no results in the entire time it existed?

        When you add to this the plethora of state level bans on random items which have, again, been shown to have no effect on crime… It becomes absurdly difficult for law abiding citizens to enjoy their rights without unwarranted intrusions into their lives. To give you an example, I can never move to California with the contents of my household. Doing so would make me an instant felon despite the fact that my only crime would be possession of items the state of California has deemed “too dangerous” by ownership by its citizens. Items that I have, in some cases, owned for decades with absolutely no incident.

        To expand on this… Why is it illegal to purchase a basic piece of safety equipment for firearms without a 8 month wait and a $200 tax stamp? I’m talking about suppressors here. Items whose only purpose is to prevent hearing damage and noise pollution. (and no magical James Bond suppressors don’t exist, the best one on the planet will still have your gun sound like a gun, it just won’t cause you to bleed from the ears if you have to use your gun to defend yourself in your home.)

        So I’ll just straight up ask. Why do we continue doing the same thing that’s been proven to not work for decades? Why is the anti crowd so eager to enact restrictions that any reasonable person can see will have minimal effects on criminality in this country? Why don’t we instead focus our efforts on addressing the causes of systematic violence in our society? (Violence that is, by the way, falling drastically over the past two decades.)

      • SpeakingOutHere

        stop the supply to criminals…Simple economics. Enforce and increase laws/against Gun violence perpetrators… Gun violence may have decreased…but not enough. It can increase….I’m not satisfied with the rationale of decreased incidents. Only murder and injuries are reported at a Federal level. Enough said…there is too much gun violence in our country!

      • pwrserge

        It is basic economics, just not in the way you think. When something is in demand, there will always be a supply. Trying to stop the supply has never worked in US history. I’ll give you two perfect examples.

        Prohibition. Banned alcohol almost completely. Caused the greatest rise in alcohol consumption in US history.

        War on Drugs. Banned most recreational drugs completely. Caused a massive growth in both drug use and profits for the drug dealers and distributors. This, despite more being spent on the “War on Drugs” than on both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

        In order to deal with things like this, you have to go after the demand, not the supply. A perfect example is Tobacco. Still perfectly legal and very loosely regulated (at least comparing to my previous examples.) Use has dropped more than 80% over the past two decades.

        Take a look at historical data for US homicide rates. Notice the nosedive right after prohibition ended. I guarantee you that if we ended the war on drugs and instead focused on the demand side, you would see a very steep drop in homicides in the US. (Fun fact, the overwhelming majority of US homicides are drug related.) This can be done with the added bonus of not infringing the rights of millions of honest Americans.

      • SouthernWatchman

        As usually, well spelled out Serge. I agree with you 110%. It is a shame that so many people actually believe that passing laws, or enforcing existing, ones will have the desired effect of lowering crime (especially when history has shown, several times, that the opposite occurs).

        The gun violence problem we have in the country can barely be called a problem since it ranks well below alcohol and vehicular related accidents. In fact, I’d say the ‘gun violence problem’ is actually just a symptom of a blight on our culture. So to actually ‘fix’ the violence problem, we need to figure out why our culture glorifies violence and death so much. Until that happens, things will not change much.

      • someguy

        Look, I see what “speaking out here” is talking about, because I myself believe in this too. here’s a simple version of my thinking- If you have a handgun in your nightstand at home, while you’re not there, with no alarm system, and no lock on the gun, then in my eyes- you are not responsible enough to own a gun. this also applies if you sell some random idiot a gun that complains he can’t get one because of his status legally. I don’t understand why gun owners in this country don’t press harder on other gun owners being more responsible. Some countries FINE you if your guns get stolen, and I think it’s a good idea, especially if it’s easy to obtain

      • pwrserge

        Fortunately, your opinion has nothing to do with my rights. Blaming somebody because their gun got stolen is like charging a woman with prostitution after she was raped.

      • SouthernWatchman

        Locally, the media blitz is working and gun ownership is plummeting. However, crime is actually up quite a bit over the last few years, and the growing weapon of choice: Knives.

        Stopping the supply to criminals is not the same as stopping the supply to regular citizens. Life abhors a vacuum, and as such, cutting the supply of legal firearms will only create a black market. Crime will not decrease this way, only shift in form (as I am seeing in my county currently)

  • SpeakingOutHere

    this is one of Simon’s comments. I don’t think you appreciate the importance of an armed society. Another rant…

  • theonlysaneone

    People like Kessler are the reasons we need gun control. Scary crazy to stalk this guys wife. Fear tactics is all they know to do and its working. They are one step away from going through with their threats.

    • pwrserge

      Which is why so many gun control advocates get shot every year? Oh… Wait…

  • Anonwrecks

    Situations like this are why I question the value of things like Facebook.

  • Pipercat

    You should probably do what John does, create two pages. The personal page should be totally locked down and change your name a bit. Then, on FB, create a “public figure” page. Then, you can let these miscreants spew all the vile effluent they want, all the while, knowing you have omnipotent control of that little universe!

    • Cemetery Girl

      I was thinking the same thing. A private page (for family and friends) and a public page. Unfortunately in this day and age this goes for many people. I have two pages (one private and one public) because one is for family and friends and one is for professional use. The private one I don’t add people if I don’t know them or have a common link (which can tell me about the person and explain why they would want to add me), and the other is for professional purposes and anyone can view. It has no information on my children or family. Nothing that anyone could make my family accessible for anyone with questionable intents. Sadly, this is the truth for most people.

  • mike

    shame this is what i call extreme

  • Mary Sullivan

    So sorry. Keep up the good work. It sounds like he needs to be blocked from your work given that he is bereft of manners and intent on harassing you. Please be safe.

  • dragster147

    They are their own worst enemies. They will keep acting like criminals until everyone else gets so fed up that we WILL abolish the 2nd and make owning guns illegal because these nuts think they are not doing anything wrong but then turn around and threaten people and act like stalkers forcing themselves onto other people who don’t want anything to do with them.

    If they want to live by the gun, then maybe they should DIE by the gun. They get violent and act like terrorists, then let the police shot them like the rabid dogs that they are and act like.

    It’s the anti gun people who are protecting the public. these gun nuts are only threatening it just so they can carry their little guns around like those crazy people who have the compulsion to carry their small pet dogs in public everywhere.

    They do all these bad things that have been described and yet they still live in the fantasy world where they think they are a good guy. White men with a stalker and rapist mentality are NOT good guys. Trying to psychologically abuse other people like these gun nuts like to do is also not being a good guy.

    Everyday they get more and more threatening, I feel the need to join them, get a gun, and then shoot every last one of them while wearing body armor just so the rest of America can live in peace and quiet without having to be threatened by these gun nuts. I know how to get away with the self defense plea. At least I know that some of the gun nuts are taking themselves out with their own stupid acts like shooting themselves accidentally.

    I just want to give those people the Darwin award and be thankful that they will no longer contribute to the gene pool.

    • pwrserge

      “I feel the need to join them, get a gun, and then shoot every last one of them while wearing body armor”

      Who’s the murderous sociopath in this conversation? It’s posts like this that are the reason why we will remain armed and will resist by any means necessary any attempt to disarm us.

      • Sandy Greer

        >no body armor on earth…
        What about Level IV?

      • pwrserge

        Level IV is a 12″x8″ plate… 80% of your body is still nice and squishy. (Not to mention that taking a rifle hit on a plate can crack your sternum or ribs and severely injure you anyway.) They are designed to keep the injury from immediately killing you so that the corpsman can get you med-evaced.

      • Sandy Greer

        Agree. I just meant – It’s survivable. 😉

      • pwrserge

        If you’re lucky to take the hit on the plate… Sure… I do not like the odds at short range against multiple shooters in a wide engagement arc.

      • dragster147

        Boy you are a moron, aren’t you. You think someone is going to let you get within point blank range? HA HA. you live in such a fantasy world.

        But actually, there IS armor out there that can defend against your situation that you stated.

      • pwrserge

        1. You do realize that “point blank range” for a rifle is ~200 yards?
        2. As I said later in the conversation, no… there really isn’t.
        3. Having actually WORN such armor in combat… Yeah… Combat vet trumps liberal armchair commando.

    • SouthernWatchman

      So the facts that nearly all of the gun related deaths every year are committed by people who illegally obtain and operate a firearm mean nothing eh?

      120,000,000 people own firearms. They should all be punished for the careless actions of <0.01% ? Sounds logical to me.

      Lets apply that to alcohol. Would you be okay with the severe restriction/abolishing of any/all alcohol if 0.01% of alcohol drinkers kill someone in a DUI?

      • pwrserge

        We tried the alcohol thing back in the 20s…. It worked about as well as you would expect.

      • dragster147

        Your first statement is a lie told by the NRA and it’s flunkies.

        Your stat is inflated. There is not that many owners out there. And the percentage of bad owners is WAY higher than you try to state so YEAH! ALL gun owners SHOULD be punished for the wackos that they have as peers. Don’t like it, then YOU do something about all the bad people in YOUR group.

        Steady decline? You telling another lie again. The REAL FBI stats show that since the assault rifle ban was lifted, the death and injury by firearms has INCREASED since 2003. The lowest death rates were when the assault ban was in EFFECT. Try again you liar.

        Seems it is you who has been drinking the NRA Koolaid. Go take your meds and stop trying to pass off your gun fetish fantasies as reality and facts. We’ve hear those same lies over and over until you gun nuts are blue in the face.

        What’s funny is that you ALL say the same thing hoping that we’d fall for the same BS you fell for when you started listening to the NRA and the retardican teabaggers.

      • SouthernWatchman

        Obtained with a 5 second google search inbetween flipping pancakes:


        There’s much more detailed and specific breakdowns to be found, all of which show a 20 decline in violent crime over a 20ish year period, but I’ve got breakfast to cook for the kiddos.

        And no, I’m not a R or a D or an NRA supporter. I’m someone who has researched and based opinions off of data and RL experiences.

        If you are calling me a liar (which is stupid), then you are calling the FBI stats lies, and at that point our conversation is over.

  • pwrserge

    Aw… Poor baby… You threaten to break into our homes, take our property, attempt to kidnap us, and murder us if we resist. However, when we push back you cry victim? Poor baby, maybe you should keep a civil tongue and not attack people’s fundamental inalienable rights.

    The right to keep and bear arms is not subject to legislation, registration, regulation, or the democratic process. If this is too difficult a concept for you to get through your skull… Too bad.

  • DavidD

    The good thing that he has surrounded himself with people like himself.More than likely one of those will take him out or he will meet a federal agent having a bad day..
    He will go to far someday and come to a bad end.
    Live by the sword,die by the sword and I’m sure your name is only one of many on a long list.

    • pwrserge

      You mean the same federal agents that ran like whipped dogs at the Bundy Ranch after they understood that use of force against citizens will be met with a massive and violent response?

      • DavidD

        Had it been up to me I would have sent them to traitor’s hell where they belonged when they first showed fight..
        Saved the taxpayers some money and sent a message.

      • pwrserge

        Yeah, good luck with that you sociopathic murderous cretin. The military would laugh in your face, most of the police would be on our side, and your few federal storm troopers would be filling up shallow graves. This was not a bunch of helpless women and children to be burned alive like you found at Waco. This was a well armed and regulated people’s militia that would give a Marine rifle company a run for their money.

  • Zipper666

    I see the same pro/anti arguments have already sprung up on the page and both talk of the “criminal element” as a factor.
    Criminals – real criminals, not street gangs, use firearms (illegal or otherwise) as a tool of their “trade”, to threaten and intimidate and as a last resort to shoot people.
    To make them the crux of firearm regulations is to miss the real point. What proponents want is to stop the slaughter of the innocent. The toddlers and 3rd graders that shoot themselves, their siblings or a friend with a carelessly stored firearm, the depressed adult with too easy access to a firearm and for people with anger control issues over a failed marriage, relationship or some imagined slight to murder in anger.
    When the country has more guns than people and too many of the guns are too casually handled the slaughter will continue.
    Nobody wants to confiscate your gun toys, just keep them locked up, willya?

    • pwrserge

      Ah yes… The “look at this baby” argument. Fun fact trollo. Firearms are not a statistically significant cause of death for children. This is especially true when you remove “children” in the 15-19 yo range (the standard used by the Brady campaign) who are involved in the drug trade. When this is accounted for, fewer children die in gun accidents than from drinking household cleaners. (By a factor of about 10.)

      Simple fact is that the NRA has been running safety programs for decades. Programs with a proven track record of reducing firearms accidents. But you guys demonize them as tools of the “gun lobby” despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of NRA funding comes from private donations by the NRA’s over five million individual members. (and not multi-million donations from fascist billionaires.)

      As for nobody wanting to take my toys… You might want to go look up the thousands of confiscation letters sent to residents of CT and NY over the past year. Might want to look up you hero Diane Feinstein on public TV lamenting that she could not get enough votes to make “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.” This sort of bold faced dishonesty on the side of the antis is why we can never address the real cause of the violence in this country.

      • Zipper666

        “not a statistically significant cause of death for children”
        Oh, okay, that’s all right then, just leave the loaded Glock in the nightstand.

        And you still flog that dead horse of “registration is the first step to confiscation” created by the PR dept of the NRA.

        Strange how the Second Amendment was simply a requirement by the young country, with no standing army to have citizens ready to form militia against England trying to reclaim the Colony but in the last twenty years the first thirteen words are ignored.

        The NRA does the bidding of the arms industry, no fascist billionaires, just greedy manufacturers. Their ideal is everybody armed, more guns is good, less guns is bad.

        Ms Feinstein is entitled to her opinion, we have a First Amendment, too but you guys seem to dislike it’s use.
        Define “antis” – I have no interest in taking your toys away but I want to feel more secure about my family and myself being in public places and no amount of “good guys with guns” is gonna make that happen.

        How about telling us what “the real cause of the violence in this country” actually is ?

      • Shadow8088

        poor culture, poverty, gangs, lack of opportunity, criminals, take your pick….

      • SouthernWatchman

        Bingo. (except the lack of opportunity. Replace it with Etitlement).

      • SouthernWatchman

        “”not a statistically significant cause of death for children”
        Oh, okay, that’s all right then, just leave the loaded Glock in the nightstand.”

        Oh come on sir, you don’t actually believe in this straw man argument, do you?

        Breaking down firearms related deaths, you get something like this:

        65% suicide
        43% inner-city gang related
        1% previously law-abiding gun owners
        <1% accidental deaths

        Given a statistical spread like this, wouldn't it make more sense to attack the 65% and 43% categories first, so we can save the most lives?

        (This assumes that people actually want to save lives)

      • pwrserge

        By happy coincidence I do keep a loaded Glock in my nightstand… Guess what… Never had an issue.

        Registration IS the first step in confiscation. Note the confiscation letters going out in NY and CT over the past year.

        The first thirteen words have nothing to do with rights specifically reserved for the people. If the founders had meant to reserve the right to keep and bear arms to the militia they would not have specifically listed it as a right of the people. English, learn it.

        The NRA has almost run entire gun companies out of business when they colluded in the violation of the people’s right to keep and bear arms. They keep the industry on a leash, not the other way around. For my example, take a look at Smith & Wesson a few years ago. They almost got run out of town.

        I don’t care what you want. My rights are not subject to your “wants”. Hiding behind the first amendment to attack the rights of Americans is still treason when you hold public office. Feinstein swore to uphold the Constitution. Her attack on the Constitution should have her swinging from a rope.

        As for the real cause of violence… Simple. War on Drugs. Just like prohibition it causes a major black market to develop and the illegality of said market leaves violence as the only means to resolve disagreements. To prove my point. Look at the nosedive in the homicide rate right after prohibition was repealed.

        Oh… and suicides are not “gun violence”. They simply don’t matter.

      • Zipper666

        “The first thirteen words have nothing to do with rights specifically
        reserved for the people. If the founders had meant to reserve
        the rig
        ht to keep and bear arms to the militia they would not have
        specifically listed it as a right of the people”
        (I deleted the gratuitous insult to avoid further embarrassment for you).

        So, now YOU are the arbiter of what the Founders intended? Pretty funny with all your waffle about The Constitution.
        Let’s suppose they DID intend what you claim, surely the Amendment would have read:
        “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”
        Sadly, (in your view) they DID start with those 13 very inconvenient words so your interpretation is just YOURS..
        I’m glad you are cool with gun suicides, and that they “don’t matter” – I guess it wouldn’t occur to you that if background checks were in place and a person had a history of clinical depression they would not have had access to a firearm…

        I note that, predictably, you descend to threatening a member of Congress with violence, always the first refuge of those who worship firearms.

      • pwrserge

        As I said. English, learn it. It’s called a preparatory clause. Go look it up. My interpretation also matches up with every single supreme court case on point. Basic English will teach you that when something is referred to as a property of one group, it is not limited to a separate, more restrictive, group.

        I don’t give a shit about gun suicides. They simply don’t matter, if they want to rage quit life, I am more than happy to let them. Just because some worthless defectives decide to punk out, does not give you a right to apply illegal restrictions to my rights.

        As for “threatening a member of Congress with violence”… It’s no more than the law. Treason is treason. When one swears to uphold the Constitution and then attacks the Constitution, one should hang by the neck until dead. In public. Over a bonfire. Feinstein is lucky we don’t tar and feather people anymore in this country.

      • Zipper666

        I get it. Same as Fox News. Interpret The Constitution so it suits you. Not unlike the Bible fanatics that pick and choose the verses that reinforce their prejudices.
        Go oil your arsenal and prepare for the black helicopters, you know that deep down you’re spoiling for a fight and the chance to go Rambo on the Feds.

      • pwrserge

        “As it suits me” happens to coincide with the Supreme Court… Not that I care, but it’s nice to have someone admit I’m right.

        As for “spoiling for a fight”… You clowns are the ones always complaining about how the feds should murder us… I say let them try. You’re going to be up against a wall right next to them.

        The 2nd amendment, fixing liberal fascist stupidity one 62 grain lobotomy at a time.

      • Zipper666

        …and there we have it.
        End discussion with direct threats of violence against the person.
        It’s that mindset that WILL encourage people to take your toys away before you go on a righteous rampage.
        Very sad.

      • pwrserge

        Who’s going to take my “toys” away? You? I think not.

        Sack up and stack up or sit down and shut up.

      • Zipper666

        LOL, you guys can’t stop with the threats once you get started!
        Good luck fighting the Feds, if it happens it won’t be a Bundy Ranch standoff they’ll just dust you.
        This redneck yahoo dumbassery is simply making the case for regulation even more relevant.

      • pwrserge

        As I said… Sack up and stack up or sit down and shut up.

        Sit back and watch as gun control joins prohibition in the legal dustbin.

      • SouthernWatchman

        No worries, it’s never going to happen. There will always be a legitimate need for the population to have the option of being armed with firearms.

        So in reality, this R vs D, L vs C argument is just one more distraction from the real issues that we face. Looks like the real winner is Govt.

      • Pipercat


      • pwrserge

        Autocorrect is annoying.

      • Pipercat

        I suppose so is proofreading!

      • pwrserge

        Yuh is beins picky wit ghrammar on teh interwebz… Epic fail.

      • Pipercat

        Epic failure.

  • TripleMoon

    I grew up in a household with guns. My father was a hunter. Although my spouse is a gun collector and hunter, I choose not to own one. People who stalk someone on their FaceBook page because of their stance on gun control are strange. The messages he left for you were just short of menacing. Things like that give gun owners a bad name. Pro-gun attitudes expressed on some websites and in comment sections are turning more and more people off to the NRA and guns in general. If fanatics that troll websites are your only reference to gun owners, gun owners are losing the PR war.

    • pwrserge

      You seem to be under the impression that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to legislation, registration, regulation or the democratic process… It is not. The 2nd amendment is an absolute right to keep and bear arms of any type in any manner. My right to bear arms is no more negotiable than my right to life. Anyone who tries to take either by force or threat of force, will be educated in the practical applications of the 2nd amendment.

      • TripleMoon

        You certainly did assume quite a bit! You know nothing about my stand on gun rights other than I choose not to own one. I do not care if you own as many as you can afford. If owning a gun and obsessing over your right to own one gives you purpose, then good for you! We all need to have passion in our lives.

  • SouthernWatchman

    “Just know that if you go after my family it will only prove you are not responsible gun owners, ethically correct, or “real men.” And this will confirm all over again that Americans are right to oppose you”

    While I agree in spirit, I think you’ve mixed two concepts together:

    1) Spineless, potentially dangerous, people spewing bile on the internet.
    2) Firearms owners/operators

    They are completely separate things. A person can be one, or the other, or neither, or both.

    By and large a majority or people are neither. Some are one or the other. A very small minority are both. The media amps up the rhetoric to the point where a lot of people get this concept all twisted.

    I do understand completely about your reaction to a threat on your family. The threats were totally uncalled for. There are some sick and twisted people out there and the internet only serves to embolden these wack jobs.

    (But it also makes the case for some sort of personal preparedness in the realm of physical security)

    There are millions of law-abiding gun owners who never have accidents, operate their weapons safely, and never harm another human being. If you listen to the media, they consider the <0.01% of registered firearms owner/operators committing crimes to be an epidemic. The facts are that ~65% of the Firearm related deaths are suicides. Of the remaining 45%, most of that is inner city gang violence. The remaining % represents crimes committed by previously law-abiding citizens.

    So if we are after saving lives, just looking at the numbers tells us we should first look into what is causing the high suicide rate. Secondly, we should look at gang violence in the cities.

    But instead, the public is largely going after the smallest portion of the issue: previously law-abiding citizens committing crimes.

    Seems a little backwards, doesn't it?

    • pwrserge

      The first two issues would require liberals to alienate their two pet voter blocks. Are you really surprised?

  • MLR

    It’s amazing how some people feel so threatened that someone is “comin fer ther guns”, it would be laughable if it weren’t for their radical ways. Threatening people at the level that they do just for differences of opinion is not normal and it’s certainly not American. Freedom doesn’t belong to some of us, it belongs to all of us and opinions are like a***holes, everyone has one. So I don’t know why these people get all riled up because people don’t share their views. But that’s the problem, it seems like they’re not playing with a full deck of cards and those are exactly the type of people that shouldn’t have guns.