Awww. Chris Staab Doesn’t Like Me

I wrote a couple weeks ago about Olivet College student Chris Staab and his amusingly idiotic videos about my friend Jeremiah Bannister’s radio show. That prompted him to make a video about me that is exactly as juvenile as one might expect given his previous efforts.

First, he puts the picture of me that you see on the right sidebar on the screen and says that I’m smiling because I have a banana shoved up my ass. Seriously. I’d say that he’s displaying the mentality of a 12-year old, but that would be an insult to 12-year olds. Then he plays a clip of my show where I talked about visiting the right wing websites after Obama announced his support of marriage equality, after which I read a couple dozen of the most appallingly racist comments imaginable. Comments like these:

I’m surprised he didn’t go one step further in approving of inter-species marriage, seeing as how he’s married to a baboon, or is she a really tall chimpanze? Anyway, if it’s cool in kenya, why not here???

NiggyThe Panderer’s failure of the day!!! Keep failing NigBama!!!

My guess is this clears the deck for Lakqisha and LaShasa to bring home their white girlfriends…JMO

No rational person could deny that those are incredibly racist and bigoted things to say. But Staab, who couldn’t find rationality with a GPS, decides to beat up a straw man instead:

The fact that he’s calling right wingers bigots because they have common sense in respects (sic) to the homosexual lifestyle. Okay. It’s common sense to know that homosexuality is just gross, disgusting and wrong, and it’s perfectly natural to be grossed out by it. So for him to call right wingers bigots because they, you know, are on the right side of history, is obviously showing how embarrassed he is of his own side because they have to defend, you know, homosexuals and that’s gotta be difficult, to defend the behavior of the homosexuals has gotta be tough, so it doesn’t surprise me that he would say something as ridiculous as that.

If at this point you’re starting to wonder how he got into college, that’s hardly an unreasonable reaction. He actually thinks that’s a coherent, compelling argument. But he’s just getting warmed up. Then he plays a bunch of edited clips where I said something funny and my co-host, Don Reese, laughed at it. He doesn’t play the many times that Don says something funny and I laughed at it because that would undermine his point that Don is a “cheerleading sissy.” Now that’s just funny. I know he can’t tell this on the radio, but Don is 6’5″ and bald and looks pretty damn scary. Staab would crap his pants before saying that to his face (not that Don would do anything but laugh at him, of course).

He then plays a clip of me talking about how the polls show that younger people are far more accepting of gay rights than older generations. And he responds:

He’s assuming that young people are more in favor of gay marriage than older people, when actually that’s not correct, and in fact he, if you paid attention to that clip, you’ll notice that he never cited one source, which is pretty much par for the course for him, because that’s what he does on a regular basis. He just assumes things, and you know what they say about assuming, it makes an ass out of you and me.

Ooh, a tired cliche! How cute. There’s no need to assume this, of course. Every poll for the last 10 years has found that people under 30 or so are far more supportive of full equality than those who are older. In fact, age correlates perfectly with support for equality — the older you are, the less likely you are to favor equal rights. Here’s a poll from just last week that found that 69% of those under 35 support marriage equality, compared to only 38 percent of seniors. I wonder if Staab can find a single survey that doesn’t find something similar. Actually, I don’t wonder at all. He can’t. And he won’t even try.

And then he has an unidentified caller, who says pretty much nothing:

Ed Brayton is very left wing extremist and the man does not give the opposing party a chance to defend themselves…He’s a hardcore left liberal and he won’t let the facts speak for themselves, he lives in denial.

Wow, how terribly convincing. Did you two practice this meaningless pablum before hand or just wing it? They both agree that “these people” — me, presumably — are trying to turn us into a “communist nation.” Oh, and I “look likea Thanksgiving day blimp” — while his anonymous caller, ironically given his earlier comments about Don laughing at the things I say that are actually funny, giggles in hysterics. How amusing. I’m fat. That’s incredibly original and meaningful and obviously disproves everything I’ve ever said. It’s kind of cute listening to these two drooling quarterwits try to play grown up.

Fiorina's Absurd Position on Planned Parenthood Shootings
Time to Build a Wall Around North Carolina
The Things That Get Megyn Kelly Upset
Abbott Cites Non-Existent Authority to Threaten Refugee Agency
About Ed Brayton

After spending several years touring the country as a stand up comedian, Ed Brayton tired of explaining his jokes to small groups of dazed illiterates and turned to writing as the most common outlet for the voices in his head. He has appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show and the Thom Hartmann Show, and is almost certain that he is the only person ever to make fun of Chuck Norris on C-SPAN.

  • StevoR

    Quarterwits? You reckon they’re that witty?

    I’d have said twelfth-wits. If that.

  • hexidecima

    femtowits, perhaps? The utter ignorance, bigotry and hatred from Mr. Staab is amazing. I guess it is good he can say such things so we know exactly who people like that are.

    People evincing such attributes have yet to ever be shown to be on the “right” side of history. His inablity to support any of his claims with actual facts demonstrates him to be simply one more liar for Christ. It’s a shame that some of the good people who happen to be Christians have to share such a title with a very scared and hateful man. Perhaps this will get them to leave such nonsense behind.

  • neXus

    That is one sad little youtube channel. Most of his videos have less than 100 views, and his most watched video is the one you linked in your last post… which has 1 like 29 dislikes. I think that’s a good indication of the quality of his arguments.

  • Stevarious

    Seriously. I’d say that he’s displaying the mentality of a 12-year old, but that would be an insult to 12-year olds.

    Indeed. My son is 12 and has a much more sophisticated sense of humor.

  • reasonbeing

    Why waste your time on this clown Ed? From the quotes you inserted it is clear that he is a) not very well spoken and b) not interested in tackling any of the real issues. It is a sign illustrating that he does not have an argument to attack your beliefs so he just goes after you personally. That type of argument is quite tedious.

  • ohioobserver

    Staab well taken down. But a note on the polls re: marriage:

    I’m 61 (I guess that makes me a “senior”) and I have never been anything but fully supportive of marriage equality for anyone; in fact, equlity of all rights and privileges for anyone. An the people I hang around with generally are as well. Although I hang around with scientists and musicians. Some teachers. You kow — educated, intelligent and talented people. Must be a biased sample.

    Seriously, I think more older folks may support equality than the polls may reflect.

  • cjtotalbro

    #5 is spot on. Obviously you dont spend a whole lot of time destroying the arguments of rational, intelligent people but at least you attack morons who have something resembling an audience. How is some kid from a no account school, making 5th rate arguments on a youtube channel no one watches worth your time?

  • Gregory in Seattle

    Quarter wits? At two bits, their intelligence is still overpriced.

  • fifthdentist

    “It’s common sense to know that homosexuality is just gross, disgusting and wrong …”

    Yes! It’s so disgusting! So disgusting that idiots like you seem to spend 23 hours out of each 24 thinking about hot, sweaty, well-lubricated, filthy, submissive, anonymous man buttsecks in airport restrooms.

    Closets have doors for a reason, you know.

  • Raging Bee

    Stevarious: most 12-year-olds have enough sense of shame to keep their stupid vulgarity under wraps. When I was that age, my friends and I knew to keep our stupidest jokes to ourselves. No self-respecting 12-year-old would ever want to be mistaken for a child!

  • chriswalker

    Why does Mr. Brayton waste time on idiots like this? Because it’s fun. Like playing target practice with a NERF gun.

  • Emptyell


    “Although I hang around with scientists and musicians. Some teachers. You kow — educated, intelligent and talented people. Must be a biased sample.

    Seriously, I think more older folks may support equality than the polls may reflect.”

    I think the polls probably do reflect the relative sizes of different people’s bubbles. I mean 32% is still a lot of people. Even though we’re not in the majority we still have plenty of folks to hang out with.

  • slc1

    Re cjtotalbro @ #7

    How is some kid from a no account school, making 5th rate arguments on a youtube channel no one watches worth your time?

    According to Wikipedia, Olivet College is a college affiliated with the United Church of Christ, a liberal Christian Church, founded by the same folks who founded Oberlin College in Ohio, not a phony institution like Regent or Liberty. Since it’s located in Michigan, perhaps Prof. Hanley of Adrian College can give us some insight as to how it’s perceived in that state. However, it would seem that referring to it as a no account school appears to be seriously in error.

  • bubba707

    Ed, to modify something from my youth, you’re fat, he’s stupid. You can lose weight but you can’t fix stupid.

  • abb3w

    @0, Ed Brayton:

    Every poll for the last 10 years has found that people under 30 or so are far more supportive of full equality than those who are older. In fact, age correlates perfectly with support for equality — the older you are, the less likely you are to favor equal rights.

    On the off chance Chris Staab happens to wander by and checks the comments, I’d like to draw his attention to the Berkeley Survey Documentation and Analysis website, and its interface to the General Social Survey. It includes a nice variety of basic statistical tools, which allow running basic correlations, controlling for variables, regressions, and so on. It even makes some basic (Razib Kahn put up a half-decent tutorial over at his Gene Expression blog.)

    For example, variable MARHOMO gives responses to a question on gay marriage; it was asked about in survey YEAR of 1988, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010. I’ve regrouped birth COHORT by decade to generate the variable CHRTDEC, which makes it pretty straightforward to see the trend. Yes: these days younger cohorts tend to be much more supportive of legalizing Gay Marriage.

    Playing with the GSS seems to help with grasping what the attitudes of the country actually are like — though since the survey is run only about every 2 years, it’s not so good for short-term fluctuations. However, it might help Chris Staab realize his personal circle of acquaintance is not a nationally representative sample.

    @0, Ed Brayton:

    I wonder if Staab can find a single survey that doesn’t find something similar. Actually, I don’t wonder at all. He can’t.

    The 1988 GSS survey had a very mild gradient between cohorts. However, that’s pretty dated.

  • anthonysmith

    I note that at no point did you deny having a banana up your bum for that particular picture….just sayin.

  • Lycanthrope

    It’s nice to know Mr. Staab doesn’t have any arguments better than “But gay people are icky!”

    So for him to call right wingers bigots because they, you know, are on the right side of history,

    You can be on the right side of history. I’d rather be on the right side of the future.

  • cottonnero

    Olivet’s a real school. Maybe not top-tier, but it’s not Kuyper either. I’d rather go there than Hillsdale, for example.

  • observer

    Unless his goal infare life is to live off wingnut welfare, this kid is seriously limiting his future employment prospects with his Youtube channel.

  • grizzle

    I wonder if that’s the kid here in the bio…..?

  • Ed Brayton

    yep, that’s him.

  • gratch

    Soooo… how does this work? Does he have to actually apply to Fox News or do they just have a job waiting for him?

  • jasmyn

    I guess he’s not terribly familiar with your blog. You’re frequently quite critical of the Obama administration. You’re not the “blind libtard” charicature he’s trying to portray you as. As for the fat comments, I’m just sad. You’re the third blogger this week (that I’ve read) post about shallow remarks that aren’t relevant to anything. You’re fat, your baby is ugly, you’re an ugly bucktoothed lesbian are all up there with “I’ll pray for you” as an admission of having no valid points.

  • Gerry Mandering

    A few days before Christmas 2013 I finally made a facebook page. Instantly I got a friend request from Chris Staab. I had known Staab during a brief two years in Michigan. Being new to facebook, I posted a link to an article pertaining to the country’s current issue on guns ( I posted it because of a debate I became embroiled in with a family member days prior. At the time of the post I was completely unaware of Chris’s political orientation. Just one post of one link. Needless to say I no longer associate myself with Christopher Staab. Below will explain:


    It all started after I posted a link to an article (see link attached). My dear friend Chris Staab is very… passionate about his anti gun control views. Note – It was this one post of a link that ignited this fury of gun banter. I would show my responses for lack of bias, but Chris deleted most if not all of them. Ask him why. I have a good idea why, but please ask him yourself if necessary:

    Chris Staab has said:

    “This article is flawed in many ways. But first let me say this, the “common sense measures” proposed by those that actually believe that “gun control” works fail to recognize that there are over roughly 2 million illegal guns (at least based on recent crime statistics, but there could be more) in the U.S. that are untraceable by the U.S. government, so basically if the “bad guys” can’t get the guns legally they will get them illegally, and in which case illegal guns are cheaper and easier to get than legal ones, because of the fact the seller doesn’t want to hang on to them any loner than he has to, and there is NO paper work involved if the gun is illegal. THIS BACKGROUND CHECK STUFF DOES NO GOOD!!!! Now allow me to get into the actual article: 1. I notice that President Obama and the Administration are willing to talk about the slaughter of innocents when there are guns involved, but not when any other weapons are used (cough) drones! 2. The article says that guns “maybe” don’t kill people, but people do. I am 100% certain that people kill people and NOT inanimate objects. They also argue that guns allow people to kill many all at once, when in fact John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy killed well over 30 people throughout their SICK KILLING SPREES,….Oh and did I mention that neither of them EVER USED A GUN!!!! Yet the most that have been killed in these shootings have been twenty-some, which is still serious, but obviously guns are NOT the issue when two PERVERTED SERIAL KILLERS can kill far more than that WITHOUT a GUN. 3. Then this article REALLY GOT RIDICULOUS and FACTUALLY INCORRECT when it states that “we never hear” about cases where armed citizens stop armed perpetrators. The person that wrote this dumb ass article never “heard” about cases in which armed citizens have stopped armed perpetrators because they failed to do their research. To start off the research you can just go on YOU TUBE and type in “Concealed Carry Caught in Action” and several CAUGHT ON CAMERA, real life scenarios show ARMED CITIZENS STOPPING ARMED PERPETRATORS by either shooting the bad guy, or by just showing their gun and the bad guy giving up. Actually if you really do your homework you’ll find that most of the GUN deaths in America consist of bad guys getting shot by police and armed citizens. So actually armed citizens shooting and killing bad guys in the act of their crimes is something very REAL and DOES actually happen everyday, and you don’t have to be Jason Borne to do it either 4. Then this article is naive enough, YES NAIVE enough to suggest that somehow these types of “gun control measures” will make it tougher for criminals to get guns when it won’t, because as I said illegal guns are already in the country and are far cheaper and easier to get, BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON’T REQUIRE A BACKGROUND CHECK WHEN YOU BY AN ILLEGAL GUN FROM THEM. 5. There are plenty of other problems with this article, ranging from the ridiculous suggestions that gun owners think they are “Wyatt Earp”, when gun ownership is something that gun owners take very seriously, because guns are not “to play with” as this retarded article also claims gun owners do. Funny how people that don’t own guns (or have very little to NO experience with guns) wish to lecture those of us that actually know what we’re talking about. Because most gun owners own guns because we look at the statistics and facts first and make a decision to own a gun or guns based on the fact that we live in a dangerous world with criminals with illegal guns and other means of doing people harm, and a world history of tyrannical governments that have never hesitated to slaughter innocent people. This is just a SMALL PIECE OF WHAT I HAVE TO OFFER ON THIS TOPIC. This article is factually wrong and does its readers no good by making bogus, and inaccurate remarks, as well as just going off of emotion. It is time people start thinking with their brains. I AM NOT A PARTISAN, I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN or a DEMOCRAT, I take each issue one at a time, and when we look at this issue, this article is on the wrong side of the argument. PERIOD!!!!”

    “When I read that “ARTICLE” [name omitted] I think it is obvious that those who wrote it were extremely wrong all around, but they were especially wrong in suggesting that those who carry guns are somehow unable to stop a mass shooting. I think the video speaks for itself:

    “Well you are free to disagree, and believe whatever you want. The FACT is that; where there are MORE GUNS there is LESS violent crime, and that people own guns to protect themselves from criminals and governments (not that there is much of a difference). It is naive to believe that background checks will stop criminals from getting guns, and not only will it not stop the criminals but it will NOT even make it more difficult because of the millions of illegal guns that are already in the country, not to mention most murders are committed WITHOUT guns. It is a waste of time to focus on a single tool (like a gun) that is used in only an extremely small fraction of violent crimes in this country as opposed to focusing on the issue of violent crime as a whole.”

    “Not to mention the countless cases in which armed citizens have stopped violent criminals in their tracks.”

    “Basically Armed Society = GOOD,….Gun Control/Manipulation = Tyranny”

    “Well I won’t tell you how to feel, but you are not being “harassed”, and this is just a discussion about an issue that I wish people would look at from a more logical perspective rather than an emotional one. I think on this issue you might want to look at the violent crime rate as a whole, and the issue of violence as a whole rather than focusing on just violent cases involving guns. The fact is that guns are used effectively, very often, in self-defense in numerous cases. Also, either you care about the issue of violence or you don’t, and if you’re going to become engaged in discussions dealing with violence only when a gun is involved and you ignore the other cases of violence when guns are not involved then you’re obviously not that concerned over the issue of violence.”

    “The “ideological fallacies” are actually coming directly from YOUR SIDE because of the fact that it isn’t based off of any actual rational argument. Example: I saw you post a photo on your wall about how domestic violence is an issue, and that a certain percentage (a small percentage) of women will be killed by their abusers with guns, this is unfortunate but the fact of the matter is that you post something concerning the issue of women who are victims of domestic violence, but YOU ONLY TOOK A STANCE AGAINST THE WOMEN WHO ARE KILLED WITH GUNS, what about the countless amount of women that are killed, not by a gun, but with some other sort of weapon (knife, bat, hammer, just the abusers own two hands) by abusers. The percentage of women that are killed by their abusers with a weapon that is NOT A GUN in cases of domestic violence makes up the majority of domestic violence statistics. So my question is still this; why would you only take a stance against something violent when a gun is involved, and ignore the other cases of violence in which guns are NOT used (which are the majority). Not only that, but these “pro-better-background check” wakos falsely claim that background checks will solve the issue of criminals, mentally ill people, and other violent offenders being able to gain access to guns when in fact it will not, because of the fact that there are MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL GUNS IN THE U.S. ALREADY, AND THOSE ARE THE GUNS USED IN THE MAJORITY OF VIOLENT CRIMES WHICH INVOLVE GUNS, so background checks for legal guns will do nothing, legal guns are for law abiding citizens so that they can protect themselves from bad guys, and not just bad guys with guns, but any sort of threat of violence. Plus, GUNS THAT ARE OBTAINED ILLEGALLY ARE EASIER TO GET AND DON”T REQUIRE A BACKGROUND CHECK, I have NOT heard a solution to that problem, and that’s because there is nothing our pathetic government can do about it. Finally, those who are obsessed, YES obsessed with the issue of violence only when a gun is involved are NOT concerned AT ALL about violence, because they ignore the majority of violent offense cases, and statistically, in most violent offense cases a gun is NOT used, so where is the outcry from the “pro-better-background checks” group, in which you claim is “concerned with violence and preserving life”. The notion that this “pro-better-background check” group is concerned with violence and preserving lives of innocents is a bunch of BULL****, because they only focus and obsess over violent crimes committed with guns, and ignore the violent crimes that are committed without guns. The majority of violent crimes are committed WITHOUT GUNS, NOT WITH. Plus, these groups also fail to recognize the fact that innocent people defend themselves from violent offenders with the use of a gun everyday, and proves to be the solution to the overall issue of violence in America. The solution to violent crimes is SIMPLE, ARM THE PEOPLE, because if the innocent good people are armed and ready to defend themselves, then the GOOD GUYS will be more likely to win and the BAD GUYS will be more likely to lose, and it has already proven to be true. The answer to violence does not lie in another law, or a background check system, but the answer is simply to encourage MORE, YES MORE people to be armed so that they can be ready to defend their life, loved ones and/or property.”

    “I think this proves my point, which is that it is better to be objective in these cases rather than selectively pick groups to donate to that have an agenda and only focus on a small percentage of violent crimes and ignore the rest. These groups selectively pick cases of violence to take a stand against, and give no attention to the rest, and they base their stance off of a emotional platform which focuses on objects (i.e. guns) rather than focusing on violent behavior all around. I just shake my head in shame over these emotionally disturbed gun-control wakos.”

    “Well, I credit that the majority of these particular responses from [name omitted] as purely emotional, and simply subjective. There is NO emotion behind my reasoning, but only logic and statistics (among other rational things). If there are individuals out there who have had bad experiences in their past that have led them to lead emotionally charged statements to which have no logic or facts behind them, then there is nothing I can do about that. I have presented the facts to [name omitted] and yet he still refuses to accept reality, but he is still entitled to his opinion (even if extremely flawed and irrational :)).”

    “The fact is that got it WRONG on this issue, and they always will unless they consider the facts like the good man in the video above known as Stefan Molyneux, who not a liberal or a conservative, but an objective FACT LOVING AMERICAN. He can educate you and everyone at on this issue. ”

    “You see folks, this is the problem with people like this,…THEY SIMPLY DO NOT CHECK THE FACTS!!!!! The background checks would not work (as I have stated numerous times) because of the fact that there are already millions upon millions of illegal guns already in the country that criminals sell, and it is absurd to believe that those criminals will do background checks on those that they sell firearms to. Also these “assault weapons” DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT exist. If you check the facts (which mentally ill gun-control advocates are unable to do) you would know that AUTOMATIC weapons have been banned from private purchase since the 1930s and so this “assault weapons” ban would have to only include the remainder of firearms (single shot and semi-auto etc.) which means that the 2nd Amendment and self-defense is once again under attack. These fools don’t even know what exact make, model and/or even caliber style weapons would go under the “assault weapons” category, and yet they regurgitate this “assault weapons” phrase like half-retarded parrots because the mainstream media told them to (ah what good sheep they are). Then they insist they can “enforce trafficking laws” when the nations OWN ATTORNEY GENERAL Eric (scum-bag) Holder helped run automatic and semi-automatic weapons to drug cartels in Mexico, so if the federal government of the U.S. wishes to stop trafficking then maybe they should look in their own groups (cough) DOJ, and Eric Holder. But you don’t see these mentally challenged gun-control pin heads looking at the matter of our own government running automatic and semi-automatic weapons to thugs. So if our own government is running those types of guns to thugs, and engaging in gun trafficking themselves, then why should we trust them to “enforce stricter trafficking laws” my gosh how naive. LOL And THERE IS NO GUN VIOLENCE “EPIDEMIC” because most of those shot and killed with guns are bad guys who are either killed by other bad guys (gang violence), bad guys shot and killed by police, and/or bad guys shot and killed by armed citizens trying to defend themselves and others. The rest are of course made up of innocent people, but as I have said before ALL OF THE GUN RELATED DEATHS in the U.S. make up only a small portion of the actual murder rate, the overwhelming majority of those who are murdered in the U.S. are not murdered with firearms but with other weapons. These mentally challenged psychos who advocate for more gun laws and control obsess only over the gun related deaths and are selectively oblivious and could care less about the rest of the violence because they never mention it and we never hear a peep from them about it. I HAVE JUST STATED THE FACTS. ”

    “You mean a dose of reality?…”

    “no I am not the one with an irrational fear of things such as firearms and other weapons and other inanimate objects. Your side of the argument OBSESSES over a particular tool (a gun) which is used in a very low percentage of cases of violence in the U.S., and you obsess over the minority and ignore the rest, and I would say that that is “obsessive-compulsive” and irrational. On this issue you need to use your brain to think, and not some silly predisposition based on a “bad experience” you had once in your life relating directly to this issue. Just something to think about. ”

    “Hahaha it’s funny listening to you because you sound like an angry over-emotional woman in the lip-stick department of Macy’s. How about you listen to my man Stefan, because actually disproves your false assertion that “67% (of murders) were committed with firearms”. Some my question for YOU [name omitted] is who has “brainwashed” YOU to believe this Nazi-Germany bull**** because you fell for the false statistics of “67%” like someone with the IQ of a jellybean (typical IQ of a gun-control advocate though). All of Stefan’s facts that he gives can be found in the sources he privdes under his VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE. Check these FACTS out [name omitted] I think you will learn a lot, because it will be better that believing false statistics like you obviously have been falling for, and for quite some time I can see. Here is the video,watch and learn the facts:

    “[name omitted] the FACTS prove me RIGHT and YOU WRONG, you need to do your research ”

    “Hahaha, keep telling yourself they’re in “the right place” because you are good at convincing yourself with false statements and doctored up facts LOL”

    “Oh and here is something else you can LEARN from

    “you’re the one who is narrow minded, you ignore my facts that I present, and you trap yourself in your delusions you adopted from your earlier youth. I have the facts and you give in to your propaganda, and how do you whether I am conservative or not because I have only given you the facts on one issue. haha you’re pathetic”

    “by the way you also selectively picked only one bogus source, and that was it, so you are the one who is narrow minded”

    “ATTENTION FACEBOOK FRIENDS I need to apologize on behalf of [name omitted] [name omitted] (because he will not muster up the courage to apologize) for his inappropriate behavior, rhetoric and LIES. He continuously made factually incorrect statements under one of my posts, and his last few posts were so OUT THERE that I simply had to do the responsible thing and delete them. The fact is that he ([name omitted] [name omitted]) is extremely misled on the issue of gun-control, and simply cannot take responsibility for his destructive and emotionally driven ideological stance that has led to the deaths of many innocent people, whether it was because of violent criminals or tyrannical governments oppressing people and those people were unable to defend themselves because of ridiculous ideas that have flew out of the mouths of people like Mr. [name omitted].”

    “I have deleted the comments under this post, because my discussion with [name omitted] [name omitted] went nowhere because he was unable to accept reality, as well as unable to accept the truth and the facts about the issue. I noted several wonderful sources that he ([name omitted] [name omitted]) consistently ignored, and since I am the one out of the two of us that actually cares about the issue of violence, I think it would be best for to continue to provide wonderful sources even if people like Mr. [name omitted] cannot accept them because of his emotional bias.”

    “That’s right [name omitted] [name omitted], Hitler supported gun-control, just like your icon Obama. You cited several inaccurate, unreliable sources in your last incoherent comments under my Facebook post you obsessed over. The sources you cited are INACCURATE, and you continue to cite them because they support your delusions. I will continue to post my sources that prove your sources to be corrupt, bias and factually incorrect. ”

    “You see Putt, [name omitted] [name omitted] is under the false impression that in some way the only guns that are out there are the legal ones, and out of all the murders in the country on average a very small percentage of the murders are committed with guns that can be bought legally from a gun store or gun show etc. The rest of the gun HOMICIDES (there is a difference between homicide and murder) are gang killings (with ILLEGAL GUNS that the government can do NOTHING ABOUT) and bad guys getting killed by cops and armed citizens. [name omitted] talks about an “epidemic” but there is NO “epidemic” because A. Bad guys getting killed by GOOD GUYS is not a problem, and B. There is nothing that can be done about gang violence with illegal guns and other weapons. Mr. [nam omitted] needs a reality check. When you ([name omitted]) say 67% of deaths are “gun related” that statistic includes JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES in which BAD GUYS ARE SHOT DEAD BY GOOD GUYS (which is a good thing) which proves most gun owners do FAR MORE GOOD than harm. Now if you just want to focus on gun murders then that is the number that is an extremely small percentage of the MURDERS. [name omitted] needs to learn how to read statistics, and then, and only then will he be able to see straight on this issue as well as many others.”

    “The problem with people like [name omitted] [name omitted] that cite the “67% gun death rate” is that they FAIL to recognize the fact that the MAJORITY of the deaths in that so-called “67% gun death rate” consist of violent criminals who are shot and killed by police and armed citizens (patriots) and the rest of those numbers consist of gang members killing each other with ILLEGAL GUNS (which the government can do nothing about, so [name omitted] [name omitted]‘s plan is a failure) and a very SMALL percentage of the murder rate and gun death rate (the remainder) consists of innocent American citizens killed with guns. Mr. [name omitted] really needs to learn how to read statistics, because if you cite the “67% gun death rate” but FAIL to recognize the fact that the overwhelming majority of that specific percentage is consisting of JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES (bad guys getting killed by good citizens and police). This is simple for a SMART PERSON to understand! The “67% gun death rate” shows that many BAD GUYS are getting what they deserve everyday because of GOOD GUYS who have guns like the should. More GUNS = LESS BAD GUYS, that’s what the “67%” statistic proves, so thank YOU Mr. [name omitted] for helping me prove my point. ”

    “I agree with you Weiss 100%, and I do think that [name omitted] [name omitted], with his overwhelming lack of knowledge of firearms, is the one who would be most likely to accidentally “shoot his eye out”. LOL People like you and I Weiss understand firearms, as well as the responsibility of having them, and people like Mr. [name omitted] DO NOT understand the responsibility or the value. PERIOD!!”

    “Thank You [name omitted] [name omitted] for posting a series of my educational comments on your timeline. ”

    “[name omitted] [name omitted] thinks I am being biased, when all I am doing is reporting the facts to my followers, which is why I have almost 500, and Mr. [name omitted] has only a few (hardly any). Mr. [name omitted] is the one who is biased because I am objective and he (Mr. [name omitted]) selectively chooses specific sections of statistics to alter. See the collection of my educational comments and Mr. [name omitted]‘s irrational mumbo-jumbo for yourself: (he lists the list I made of him thus far)”

    Hey Brett Emerson Weiss, Nathanael Putt, Mark Mack watch this video from the very beginning until about “1:41″ into the video, because there is a sound clip of Vice President Joe Biden saying and ADMITTING that their ” newly proposed gun laws” will “NOT eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting (or any other type of violence)”, so we know that these bureaucrats in our government have another motive behind this assault on our freedom and 2nd Amendment Rights. It’s definitely something that [name omitted] [name omitted] should take a look at, because he foolishly and naively believes that the government can do any good on this issue or any other issue for that matter. Mr. [name omitted] believes that people like myself are “conspiracy theorists” and other labels such as that, but people such as I are simply objective, freedom loving Americans who reject the proposals from tyrants like the government bureaucrats, and the naive sheep, like Mr. [name omitted], that fall for these broken promises.

    “Well [name omitted] you sound very confused, because again, all of your big statements are false. I would recommend you take a nap, and then take a step back and reexamine everything, including yourself”