Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, May 15, 2014

Mark Follman, Mother Jones: Ever since the Sandy Hook massacre, a small but vocal faction of the gun rights movement has been targeting women who speak up on the issue -- whether to propose tighter regulations, educate about the dangers to children, or simply to sell guns with innovative security features. The vicious and often sexually degrading attacks have evolved far beyond online trolling, culminating in severe bullying, harassment, invasion of privacy, and physical aggression. Though vitriol flows from both sides in the gun debate, these menacing tactics have begun to alarm even some entrenched pro-gun conservatives.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

snoofy

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

A mom, gun owner, and Second Amendment supporter, [Jennifer] Longdon was paralyzed in 2004 after being shot in her car by unknown assailants, and has since been a vocal advocate for comprehensive background checks and other gun reforms. ...

Last May in her hometown of Phoenix, she helped coordinate a gun buyback program with local police over three weekends. On the first Saturday, a group of men assembled across the street from the church parking lot where Longdon was set up. ... Some of them approached Longdon. "You know what was wrong with your shooting?" one said. "They didn't aim better." Another man came up, looked Longdon up and down and said, "I know who you are." Then he recited her home address. The harassment continued, and the men showed up throughout the program, a Phoenix police official involved confirmed to me. ...

The majority of gun owners in America are good people, she adds. "I wish that more responsible gun owners would step into this conversation and say 'Look, those guys don't speak for us.'"

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Hey, why not say it again? If these people couldn't threaten someone, their lives would have no meaning.

None of them needs to have, or deserves to have, a firearm.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-15 05:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

After a fundraiser one night during the program, Longdon returned home around 10 p.m., parked her ramp-equipped van and began unloading herself. As she wheeled up to her house, a man stepped out of the shadows. He was dressed in black and had a rifle, "like something out of a commando movie," Longdon told me. He took aim at her and pulled the trigger. Longdon was hit with a stream of water. "Don't you wish you had a gun now, bitch?" he scoffed before taking off.

FROM THE ARTICLE

Boy, you sure can tell that this Yahoo is interested in preserving his Second Amendment gun rights.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-15 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

The woman is in a wheelchair, are there a boundaries for the loony gun- nuts?

#3 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-05-15 05:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

The woman is in a wheelchair, are there a boundaries for the loony gun- nuts?
#3 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-05-15 05:53 PM

You must be new here.

#4 | Posted by censored at 2014-05-15 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

The woman is in a wheelchair, are there a boundaries for the loony gun- nuts?

#3 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-05-15 05:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

First you would have to believe that the account is true. There's no evidence to say that it's true. If she got spit on she should have reported it.

Probably 75% of this MJ piece is made up or false-flagged and the other 25% is embellished to an extent that would embarrass even our internet inventor ALGore.

#5 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-05-15 06:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

The irony, Hug, is that you yourself are making assertions without evidence.

#6 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-05-15 06:32 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

There is something about human nature, and those who would attempt to steal hundreds of years of USA freedoms and rights, such as the right of Americans to protect themselves with a firearm, that frankly has a tendency to pxss some freedom loving people off.

Those that consistently push this issue are typically wealthy 20th century immigrant oligarchs. Or they are self professed urban elites with a Soviet ancestry and history of favoring Communism, and tyranny by the few, while keeping the huddled impoverished masses under thumb, politically neutered and armed with only broken pitchforks.

Gun control proponents have a pattern of behavior of working for the oligarchs and against the average citizenry, just as Wall Street also works against the masses. Same pattern.

#7 | Posted by Robson at 2014-05-15 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

#7 | Posted by Robson

I bet you actually believe all of that.

#8 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-05-15 06:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

The irony, Hug, is that you yourself are making assertions without evidence.

#6 | Posted by pragmatist at 2014-05-15 06:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Exactly!
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

en.wikipedia.org

#9 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-05-15 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Huge is another who simply can not accept that there are happenings in the world which could discredit his/her own "belief" system.

Anything which might run contrary to that belief must be video proofed to be real, and even that 'might have been faked'.

"Made up...false flag...embellished..." There is not a shred of fact to substantiate this arguement, it's simply belief.

Sad really.

#10 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-05-15 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Never been a big fan of Sigmund Freud but I do suspect that the ultra-crazy gun nuts do seem to be fearing that someone is trying to take away something more important than their guns.
I have no problem with most gun owners, I've considered getting myself in case of a riot or other type of emergency but I don't think most normal gun owners object to universal background checks and other ideas to keep guns out of the hands of those who just should not have them.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-15 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL
That's why I call you guys 'The Believers'.

#12 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-05-15 07:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have no problem with most gun owners, I've considered getting myself in case of a riot or other type of emergency but I don't think most normal gun owners object to universal background checks and other ideas to keep guns out of the hands of those who just should not have them.
#11 | Posted by danni at 2014-05-15 07:07 PM

92% of Americans support universal background checks (89$% of Repubs, and 93% of Dems), but I guess those numbers aren't high enough to convince our elected officials (or the five partisan nutjob hacks on the Supreme Court).

#13 | Posted by censored at 2014-05-15 07:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"the church parking lot where Longdon was"

Time was thugs had fear of threatening people on Church property.

Charles Darwin was right to fear them.

#14 | Posted by Tor at 2014-05-15 08:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

...but I guess those numbers aren't high enough to convince our elected officials (or the five partisan nutjob hacks on the Supreme Court).

When did "the five partisan nutjob hacks on the Supreme Court" rule against background checks? Hint, they haven't and neither has any other court that I'm aware of. But don't let me stop you from exhibiting your ignorance.

So, that leaves Congress, how many background check bills have you seen floating around in the past few years?

Oh, and Ms. Longdon, those freaking idiots don't speak for me.

#15 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-15 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Exactly!
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Actually there was plenty of "evidence" in the article that the story is true and which can be verified.

You have absolutely none.

Not surprising you cannot see the difference.

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-05-15 08:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

@ Et_al

Interesting rephrasing of my statement on the Supreme Court. If you want to see Supreme Court rulings on background checks, both past and future, use the Google (hint: Printz for the past, Abramski for the future). Granted, the Court could prove my fortune-telling skills lacking on Abramski, but I'd wager not.

As for background check legislation floating around Congress, you can use Google for that one as well.

#17 | Posted by censored at 2014-05-15 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Probably 75% of this MJ piece is made up or false-flagged..."

Stop dude. Everyone knows that MotherJones is fair and balanced.

Next you'll be disparaging Amy Goodman.

Shame one you.

#18 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-15 10:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Reminds me of those waitresses who write derogatory comments on their reciepts in the tip lines pretending to be the customer, flock to SJW sites and profit!

Or the college students who spray paint swastikas on their doors or write themselves letters threatening hate rape to gain attention.

You never hear of their consequences in the media, just the initial uproars. .

Heres a classic:

tolerant liberal college student showing his intolerance of opposing views

www.youtube.com

#19 | Posted by aescal at 2014-05-15 11:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Posted by censored

So, you're a blowhard that expects others to research your assertions.

#20 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-15 11:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Probably 75% of this MJ piece is made up or false-flagged ...

Mother Jones is a 38-year-old magazine with a circulation over 200,000 that has won six National Magazine Awards and been nominated for another 21. It's an old-school journalistic publication that would fact-check allegations like the ones made in this story before printing them.

When you consider how many different women report harassment and assaults by gun-rights extremists and that Jennifer Logdon called police and a Phoenix police official confirms she was harassed by a group of men, the idea it's all made up is your desperate attempt to avoid facing reality.

There's an ugly undercurrent of abusive lunatics in the gun rights movement. Instead of pretending that isn't true, you should be condemning their actions and distancing yourself from them.

#21 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-15 11:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, you're a blowhard that expects others to research your assertions.
#20 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-15 11:20 PM

None of the assertions you wrongly claimed that I made actually have anything to do with the assertions that I actually made (i.e. alleged lack of congressional bills does not demonstrate that congress cares about public opinion on background checks; alleged lack of Supreme Court decisions on background checks has nothing to do with the five partisan hacks' attitudes towards background checks (see demeanor and questions presented by said partisan hacks in Abramski arguments)).

In any event, you seem to be getting a little worked up over this. You can research the assertions you wrongly claimed that I made if that floats your boat; you might learn a thing or two.

#22 | Posted by censored at 2014-05-15 11:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Posted by censored

That said, here is the Abramski case. It deals with the intricacies of straw purchasing. No decision has been rendered. Here is the Printz case, it deals with whether Congress can compel a local sheriff to implement federal policy. Congress can't. So, two of your two cases fail to support, in fact have nothing to do with, your apparent contention that the Supreme Court is somehow hostile to background checks. They are not, see Heller. Also, given your current track record, pardon me if I don't make a fool of you by researching background check bills beyond the one I'm aware of that did nothing and went nowhere.

#23 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-15 11:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Posted by et_al

I'm happy for you that you can take the Supreme Court at its word. Unfortunately for myself, I don't believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus either.

#24 | Posted by censored at 2014-05-16 12:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well, isn't it now OBVIOUS we who support gun ownership hate women and cripples? The link "proves" that.
Mother Jones has always been as objective as the Christian Science Monitor in any case....
Spare us these editorials disguised as news stories.

#25 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-05-16 12:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

.... "The vicious and often sexually degrading attacks have evolved far beyond online trolling, culminating in severe bullying, harassment, invasion of privacy, and physical aggression"

**** No Doubt This is a staged CIA/FBI FALSE FLAG OP (using female actors) to once again try to Nullify and Destroy American Citizen's RIGHTS to Own and Bear Arms!!!

p.s It's also interesting to note that Mother Jones is In Bed with these False Flaggers!

#26 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2014-05-16 01:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Please, Anticadillac! We gun rights types love to abuse women and torture invalids. Don't disturb the liberal quiet zone.

#27 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-05-16 01:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm happy for you that you can take the Supreme Court at its word. Unfortunately for myself, I don't believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus either.

Nor do I believe in mythical creatures. What does that have to do with the fact that "the five partisan nutjob hacks on the Supreme Court," or whomever on the Court, have not expressed an opinion on background checks, other than Heller?

#28 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-16 01:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Don't you wish you had a gun now, bitch?" he scoffed before taking off.

The ultimate irony would be if she had a gun and wasted that piece o s.

I wonder if he has truck nutz hanging off the back of his pickup?

#29 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-16 08:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

There's no evidence to say that it's true.

Testimony is evidence.

#30 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-16 08:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Mother Jones has always been as objective as the Christian Science Monitor in any case....

It's a lot more objective than LifeSiteNews. Stop shooting the messenger.

#31 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-16 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Objective" and "Mother Jones" are two terms that should never be used in the same sentance.

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-16 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

""Objective" and "Mother Jones" are two terms that should never be used in the same sentance."

Yup, one of the few so bad that it makes even WND look like a real news source.

#33 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-16 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you think Mother Jones is in any way comparable to a den of kookery and racism like WND, you have absolutely no credibility.

#34 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-16 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

...den of kookery...

LOL. I like that one.

#35 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-16 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you think Mother Jones is in any way comparable to a den of kookery and racism like WND, you have absolutely no credibility."

If you think it is anything different you are absolutely insane.

Mother Jones is exactly what it is wanted to be an outlet for one sided propaganda. It is mostly void of fact and almost solely relies on emotional content as in this story. They have no issue publishing unsubstantiated and intentionally skewed stories. Don't pretend it is anything different, you are better then that. It is sites like mother jones that lower the bar on the entirety of internet reporting. Read up on their site the switch over to the onion, i'd bet you would have a hard time telling the difference and at least the onion is honest about what they are doing.

#36 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-16 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It always floors me when people judge a media outlet based on it's politicla bias. Especially one, like MJ, that is built on and devoted to bias.

I don't expect people to be wholly objective, but MJ and WND are opposite sides of the same coin. I don't know how you could possibly claim otherwise.

Left-ish news outlets like HuffPo or MSNBC-got it. HuffPo actually has some really good stuff. Some really objective stuff. MJ never, ever will.

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-16 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I don't expect people to be wholly objective, but MJ and WND are opposite sides of the same coin.

No, they're not. Mother Jones and National Review are opposite sides of the same coin -- longtime magazines that cover politics and news events from a non-objective perspective that follow the established standards of journalism.

WND is a fringe outfit by and for crackpots that hasn't earned one-one hundredth the crediblity as Mojo and NR.

#38 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-16 03:58 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

There's an ugly undercurrent of abusive lunatics in the gun rights movement.

#21 | Posted by rcade

There's an ugly undercurrent of abusive lunatics in the anti-gun
movement.

#39 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-16 10:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Stop shooting the messenger." RCADE
Give 'em a break, RCADE. They're dying to shoot someone. I guess there aren't any women in wheelchairs available.

#40 | Posted by squinch at 2014-05-17 08:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

Crazy how most( not all) pro-gun people here are so defensive of -------- like the ones in this story. I am all for gun rights in this country because I still trust the people to have guns more than I trust the government with a gunless population... but lets get real.. this lady has every reason to push for more control and attacking her for it is a sign of very weak, insecure people.

#41 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2014-05-17 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey RCADE,
The NYT reported that Kerry said 'who among us does not love NASCAR'. Except he never said that. Editors change things.
They can leave out mitigating factors. Just like your link to the Oregon State Senate stalker. Her boyfriend said that he was sorry that he called the police. Basically blamed it on himself for being too emotional. That wasn't reflected in your headline. You tried to make it sound as bad as possible for the Republican.

#42 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-05-17 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Her boyfriend said that he was sorry that he called the police. Basically blamed it on himself for being too emotional.

The police report is a fact. The stuff he said later might be true or might be damage control. I stuck to the facts.

#43 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-17 10:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's an ugly undercurrent of abusive lunatics in the anti-gun
movement.

Prove it.

#44 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-17 10:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Mojo is objectively better than WND and a lack of being able to tell the difference is, well, telling. Sure they are one sided in their reporting but it is not just crazy ranting like WND. Rcade comparison of Mojo to National Review is more accurate although I have always though National Review did a better job but I also lean right so take that for what you will.

Nuts are nuts and do not speak for the majority ever. They do however frequently speak louder than the majority which can make it hard to remember that they are the nuts; especially with our 24/7 news cycle that has to find something to report on.

What is sad is the number willing to defend nuts. Although once again the 24/7 news cycle that floods us with information also makes us skeptical, and rightly so. That makes us doubt the veracity of the stories about nuts. Also the fact that nuts are nuts and their actions are insane by normal standards makes it hard for sane people to believe at first glance that real people actually carried out such insane actions.

That said I am a supporter of gun rights and absolutely condemn any use of violence, be it verbal or psychological or physical, targeted at anyone who expresses an opinion in support of gun control.

#45 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-05-17 11:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

The police report is a fact.

Rookie mistake.

The report says what it says, a fact. What happened, factually, may or may not be reflected in the report. Not that I doubt this lady.

I'm surprised a veteran journalist would make that error.

#46 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-18 12:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

The report says what it says, a fact.

You misunderstood what I meant. The police putting something in a report is a fact: "Police said this happened." It's not proof it really happened.

Stories like that get ignored by the media, generally, until there's some kind of official document they can cite.

Go back to my summary of that story and you'll see it is described as an allegation and sourced to the police report. Nowhere do I state definitively it happened. I say it was alleged to police.

#47 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-18 10:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rcade comparison of Mojo to National Review is more accurate although I have always though National Review did a better job but I also lean right so take that for what you will.

I go through phases where I read a lot of National Review. I don't agree with much of the politics expressed there, but they do some good reporting sometimes and have some talented writers. Victor Davis Hanson writes terrifically when he's on a rant about California being is bound straight for hell because it's not like it was in the '50s any more. Someday the Latino Victor Davis Hanson will go on a conservative rant about how California is bound for hell because it's not like it was in the '10s.

#48 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-18 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Fair enough.

#49 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-18 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort