Conservative gun nut Kevin Kordes is showing himself to be an example of why violent rhetoric in politics needs to stop. This famous right-wing argument that liberals are trying to "take away your guns," is (for the most part) completely untrue, but as long as people like Kordes exist it's going to be hard to tolerate the fact that any idiot can just go and get a gun, legally.
AddictingInfo shared a post with screenshots of the picture of this guy aiming the barrel of his gun right at his camera. The caption with the photo is a profanity-laced rant that is damn near illiterate and completely over-the-top in a way that leaves an unsettled feeling in the guts of any decent person. This is the kind of rhetoric that eventually leads to jackasses shooting crowds of people in the name of political discourse -- and it's obvious as to what causes it. Aside from the obvious mental illness this gun toting conservative displays, the comments made by politicians who overly support gun ownership leads to this. The lies told by the far right to gullible voters leads to this. When Sharron Angle said that there needed to be "second amendment remedies" in the event of Harry Reid and other liberals remaining in office, this is the vision she created. When Sarah Palin used gun crosshairs over the districts of opposing democrat districts, such as Gabby Giffords, this is the vision she created.
You can read the entire rant here, and be warned; it's nauseating. His Facebook profile is pretty frightening, but displays some of the same details that many overly right-wing people display. With the blatant threats and hateful rhetoric against entire groups of people, this guy needs to be investigated, or at least watched so as to prevent another violent homegrown terrorist attack in the U.S. The following quote, to which he attributes as his own, is on his page:
"At no time in our history have people like John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald been more needed than right now, in 2011!"
This is someone who idolizes Rush Limbaugh and other far right figures, to no surprise.
Crime analyst and profiler Chelsea Hoffman can be found on The Huffington Post, Chelsea Hoffman: Case to Case and many other outlets. Follow @TheRealChelseaH on Twitter or click here to contact Chelsea directly.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 118
“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”
― Thomas Jefferson
Behold the power of reading and knowledge and freeing your heads from your asses...
ANYONE who, even if in an oblique manner, calls for assassination is in no wise one to be admired. No one is "coming to get your guns", merely to make it a tad more difficult for wolly thinkers to shoot up more temples/theatres/people.
James, I never said I agree with shooting people that I disagree with politically and I am opposed to violence.
That comment revealed more about you than you could possibly know, Jeff.
But I think his idiocy is inflamed by misleading rhetoric by political pundits and the sort.
I don't like guns. But I don't want to take away anyone's right to use guns. But guys like this... are effing dangerous and a good reason why I am forced to carry one of my own. :|
As one of Gather's predominate progressive propagandists and Conservative/Republican haters she has to try and link these loonies with those whom she hates.
She knows that it's not true but she does it anyway.
We already know why you progressives try to equate extremists with conservatives/Republicans.
It's hate and bigotry, you progressives see we conservatives opposing your agenda and you attack in any way you can.
The John Wilkes Booth comment is grounds for a secret service visit.
"Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement
‘Impossible lack of diversity’ reflects ideological intimidation on campus"
"This finding surprised the researchers. The survey questions “were so blatant that I thought we’d get a much lower rate of agreement,†Mr. Inbar said. “Usually you have to be pretty tricky to get people to say they’d discriminate against minorities.â€"
"Generally speaking, the more liberal the respondent, the more willingness to discriminate."
It's just the way you progressives are.
We hate so much that we help the needy, and you are so loving that you don't!
It dosen't matter what you or anyone else posts, it's nothing more than the, 'you are standing in the way of our agenda so we are going to try to demean you in every way possible.
There is no scientific study that backs up your contention that can not be debunked.
"Just take a look at Fox News"
Just take a look at the progressives here on gather you all are the example of the extremist of the left, even those on the left don't agree with you.
Take a look at the study I posted above "Survey Shocker" that is the classification of people that Gather progressives belong to.
all it says to me is that nobody wants to hire someone who is statistically ignorant ;)
The survey says the more liberal you are the more you are willing to discriminate against people who have opposing viewpoints.
More and more often we see progressives doing what the criticize others for doing.
Exactly, Robert. All one has to do is look at the irrational and buffoonish ranting of some of the "Fox News watchers" to see evidence of how entertainment organizations such as Fox, Limbaugh, Beck and others count on the conspiracy-theory mentality of their patrons.
Which is why virtually nothing the tea party says they believe in is factual. Birthers? Nope, Obama was born here. Death Panels? Nope, don't exist. Government-run health care? Nope, doesn't exist (except, of course, for Medicare, which has been around for many decades). Government coming to take your guns? Nope, not happening. "Taxed Enough Already?" Nope, lowest tax rates in decades. Socialism? Nope, capitalism.
Oh, and let's not forget the idiocy of the tea party screaming that "Cap-and-Trade" and the "Individual Mandate" are "liberal ramming down our throats" attacks on the free market. Talk about dishonest. Both were Republican ideas. Both were what the Republicans forced down liberal throats (liberals wanted "carbon taxes" and a "public option," remember. Cap-and-Trade was the Republican-offered way to install a market-based mechanism to deal with climate change. Until they decided to start lying about it. Individual mandate was the Republican-offered way to install a market-based mechanism (i.e., force people to pay insurance company prices) to deal with the decades old problem of 10% of the country not having health insurance.
Getting back to the topic of this post, it is exactly the kind of intentionally false conspiracy mentality that encourages people like the deranged man in Chelsea's post to threaten the President.
Until the Republican party can get their ideology back from the bigoted tea party buffoons, the party cannot be trusted to govern.
A "quote".
Comment from the one of those responsible for administrating the survey.
A fact!
Here I'll post it for you again:
"Generally speaking, the more liberal the respondent, the more willingness to discriminate."
You are funny R.F.,
The TEA Party Patriots ARE the REAL Conservatives most republicans are rinos.
goes to show the type of people you idolize
I only hate two types of people Chelsea,
Pedaophiles and terrorists who kill innocents.
McVeight would NOT have been allowed as a TEA Party Patriot Patriot.
Petty personal attacks when bested....expected.
I only hate two types of people Chelsea
Just because you hated the guy doesn't mean he wouldn't have been one of the teabaggers. It's been well established that his ideals completely mesh with tp ideology.
That's not an attack -- it's a fact. And it's the type of mentality you continually defend (blindly might I add).
anyway, have a good one :) MW3 awaits.
"Just because you hated the guy"
Yah it does!
"That's not an attack"
Yah it was you got owned and threw a tantrum.
It's a shame that so many extremists in the United States spend all their time defending such paranoid hatred as this "conservative gun nut" exhibits.
You might want to spend less time living in a fantasy world, Dan. Reality is far better for your psyche
"His facebook profile is even scarier, and he actually calls for the assassination of President Obama in a quote which he accredits to himself. Here’s his favorite quotes, the last one being the most offensive:"
But validate the claim of the Obama threat.
"This famous right-wing argument that liberals are trying to "take away your guns," is (for the most part) completely untrue"
LOL! "(for the most part) completely untrue" LOL!
So are you are saying....Maybe a little bit?
Gun Control inc.
"Gun Show Loophole Bills Introduced in U.S. Congress"
"Limiting Bulk Sales"
" Tell Your Senators to Vote NO on "George Zimmerman Act""
"Working in the States to Protect You and Your Family"
"Keep Guns Off College Campuses!"
"Gun Lobby Leadership: Putting Our Families in Danger"
Gun control inc. is very busy trying to take our guns!
"You can read the entire rant here, and be warned; it's nauseating."
Read it.....Outrageous, but Chelsea, you are not that sensitive, you feign mock disgust for effect.
Yah I do!
Bigotry
"prejudice; intolerance" It is what you and many progressives engage in every day! Bigotry is bigotry and it doesn't matter that you think the recipient is worthy.
"Papantonio: Republican Hate Peddlers Divide America"
See the link above, "Survey shocker"
It's kind of like my cousin Marissa calling me a bigot for not wanting to hang around the family because they use the "n" word and beat their children for being effeminate.
Bigots like to call people bigots when they're sad that nobody likes them. "How dare you be intolerant of my bigotry, you bigot" -- that doesn't really work, Dan. lol.
We've been through this before Chelsea...You know full well that it was the Republicans who championed civil rights while Democrats acted as obstructionists.
The record of congressional votes proves you wrong.
"Bigots like to call people bigots"
Well you are certainly a testament to that statement.
But before you can characterize myself as a bigot you'll have to give us some examples of my bigotry.....I mean real bigotry, none of your made up I think your a bigot stuff.
I know research is like super duper hard, but you might want to try it sometime ;)
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
Something tells me that ain't the whole story.
"I know research is like super duper hard"
I've done the research before I know the facts.
"”These Negroes, they‘re getting pretty uppity these days and that‘s a problem for us since they‘ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we‘ve got to do something about this, we‘ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”
~Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat)
"President Lyndon Baines Johnson, And is “Great Society” to help the Negro… was recorded on a White House taped (and saved) conversation claiming, “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”"
Nope Chelsea it ain't that hard.
p.s. "those numbers" were posted by Lori, not me. Reading is certainly difficult, huh?
Also, how about you acknowledge that parties evolve over the years and that you're desperately clinging onto a 40+ year old notion as a means to negate the fact that it's been statistically proven that the tea party and far right voters are bigoted by today's standards?
You can't, or you simply refuse. But guess what: that isn't changing anything on a large scale. You're only proving the points being made against the ideals you desperately and blindly defend. How sad
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/conservative-fantasy-history-of-civil-rights.html
Robert Byrd (D)
But actually it was (2) quotes Chelsea....what was that about reading?
And he was the A Democrat holding the highest office in the land the Presidency.
Like I already posted Chelsea, I've already done the research I know the facts.
It's a good thing that you removed "investigative reporter" from your signature.
For More Years. Your link in no way proves that Dan is a bigot. You are just ridiculous in trying to say it does.
LBJ was a big time racist and THAT'S a fact. When Johnson realized that the black vote could be bought with crumbs, in the form of welfare checks and entitlements, and that a "grateful" black voting block would keep democrats in power for decades if not eternity, he changed his mind. But he ONLY changed his mind once he felt he could still "own" the blacks. Of course someone else wrote LBJ's speech.
Maybe you're fantasizing about that the way you do history.
Again, you're doing pathetic victory laps over something some politician said over 40 years ago.
A person who doesn't grasp the shifts made by both parties over the past 100 years obviously only understands the bare minimum about politics in the U.S. Otherwise, I could rail on about all the slaves owned by republicans before (and yes, after) they were freed.
And certainly you don't think the civil rights act is the only form of civil rights that existed in history.
At any rate -- LBJ isn't in charge of the country. The democrats are the party for civil rights today, in the here and now. Why are you still sitting back in the 50s? ;)
And certainly you don't think the civil rights act is the only form of civil rights that existed in history.
I have played ping pong with Dan on several issues in the past and have found him to be a pick and choose type of debater. {i.e.} When presenting supportive information, he conveniently selects and refers to that which he believes fits into his ideological point of view, while totally ignoring all other documentation on the issue.
It would seem that Dan's predilection to pick and choose can probably be accredited to his being an Evangelical Christian, which are people well known as being accomplished selective referencers.
Frankly, it's shocking that anyone could defend such egregious behavior and threat to human life. And yet, we see it all the time on this venue and elsewhere, both directly and by trying to deflect the discussion into straw men.
As you say, Chelsea, the constant "2nd amendment" drumbeat, gunsight imagery, violent language, and other intentionally provocative "marketing" by the extremist political operatives tacitly encourages the disturbed to act on their paranoias and bigotry. We saw it with the attack on Gabby Gifford and in many other cases. "Riling up the base" has become dangerous, because the internet gives people who would otherwise be marginalized by society a forum in which they can convince themselves that their views are of value. It's sad when it is these deranged people that you count on to be your "base."
not necessarily, Connie. The Aurora shooter purchased his legally. Jared Lee Loughner purchased his legally. Many other criminals purchase their legally. It's really not difficult to legally purchase and own a gun in this country.
Felons just have to go through illegal means to get them, but at that rate it doesn't matter because they're already felons so obviously they DGAF about law and order.
That's why I think "taking away guns" is just pointless. I think everyone should own one. To protect themselves against people who should NOT own them.
This is bound to work some unstable folks into a deadly state of mind, and does frequently.
This is the attempt to find moral justification for selfishness. It is the attempt to put the perspective of the sociopath into a philosophical framework.
It is sick.
Could be wrong - but I don't see a big threat - just an ill-informed ingorunt ingoramus.
Which, frankly, I also see from the literally 100% of our nation that supports our plainly destructive big two political parties. Now that is a very big threat.
Save some for others - pass it around.
" Felons just have to go through illegal means to get them, but at that rate it doesn't matter because they're already felons so obviously they DGAF about law and order. "
" That's why I think "taking away guns" is just pointless. I think everyone should own one. To protect themselves against people who should NOT own them. "
Those of you who came to this thread looking to start an argumant about gun control are barking up the wrong tree. Chelsea isn't getting a fair shake on this one.
Here are my thoughts on our gun situation in America, and what I believe should and should not be done in relation to the current laws of the land.
Gun Ownership…The right to own a gun should be taken very seriously, and most who do have personal guns are serious and responsible. As always, we need to be very careful not to allow suggested acceptable behavior from the government, or to be guided by emotions, politics, or the words of others, when it comes to the foundation of the right to own a firearm. No one…Let me repeat…No one, either on the right or the left wants guns to fall into the wrong hands and allow those guns to be used in an illegal manner, or in a scenario whereas lack of responsibility or mental instability will create an unsafe environment for the innocent. Before evaluating any national or social problem, the key to an actual understanding on the issue must be based on honesty. “It should not be assumed that anyone from the left wants to ban guns, nor should it be assumed that anyone from the right wishes to arm every single American, regardless of their criminal history or their mental capacity.” Those assumptions will guarantee a cloudy focus and there will be no true agreement, or even understanding between the two sides.
(1) Purchasing Guns And Ammunition On The Internet…In my personal opinion, purchasing weapons or ammunition on the Internet should not be allowed under any circumstances. In reality, no one should be opposed to this regulation for a simple reason. We should be very cautious with anyone who sees an urgency when it comes to purchasing a gun or ammunition. No one should be in a hurry to get a gun, as that urgency may very well represent a planned action for the gun or ammunition. When someone is angry, or possibly suicidal, many times logical thought or a rational mentality is simply not present, and that is certainly not an acceptable frame of mind to purchase a weapon. My other reason, as it relates to purchasing weapons on the Internet is that the Internet is a secret place to many, and secrecy is quite easy to maintain. There are extreme possibilities of fraud, manipulation of the system, and the ability to feed the criminal element that may be much more difficult and less risky than to make the purchase on the street. After all, you can be anyone on the Internet, and the only true component of a gun transaction on the Internet is the ability to pay, and even that may be manipulated. The inability to purchase weapons and ammunition on the Internet addresses both the criminal element and in some cases the mental stability (temporary mentality or maybe a permanent mental flaw) and could actually impact or prevent some bad situations from becoming a reality.
(2) Waiting Period For Purchasing A Gun…I think it may be good idea to lengthen the waiting period that is required before you can take possession of a firearm. This addresses the same issue as with the Internet, in that the purchase of a gun should not be a hurried event, and an individual who expresses that sense of urgency should send up a mental flare in our minds as to why this individual is in a hurry to get a gun. The waiting period should be long enough to ensure a thorough background check can be done on the individual that will both allow it to be know if the individual is eligible to purchase a gun, and to ensure that a cooling off period is provided in the simple form of time, just in case the individual is not in a stable state of mind at that time. Again, no one should be in a hurry to purchase a gun. Anyone who is willing to wait, and does not oppose a waiting period represents someone who is probably not planning a specific use for the gun. The waiting period will allow a proper background check to be processed, and will help prevent someone from having access to a purchased gun while he/she is angry or possibly suicidal.
(3) Psychological Evaluation…This one may upset some of my friends on the right. If we plan to put forth effort to keep guns out of the hands of those who are mentally unstable, or from the criminal element of our society, we have to understand that a gun is fairly innocent unless it may fall into the hands of a non-rational person, a mentally unstable person, or someone who wishes harm unto others for a personal reason that expands beyond the simple concept of personal protection. With a psychological evaluation, I personally would insist upon a single factor. That would be that the government is not to be in charge of the evaluation process, or connected in any way, other than to receive the basic premise of the evaluation. The evaluation should be based on the science of Psychology, not on the government’s version of sanity, which in itself seems redundant. The unstable mind, which is very often the determining factor of situations like the recent Colorado tragedy must be more visible if we are to stop this type of violence against society. The evaluations should be from random qualified Psychologists who have a specific line of questioning to determine the mental stability of the individual and to evaluate whether or not underlying motives may be present. I would also suggest that the results of the evaluation, unless there are obvious permanent mental issues, that the evaluation not be the final say in whether or not the individual will ever be able to be re-evaluated for the same reason. We do not want the government to have a way to simple pick and choose who will or will not be able to have a handgun, based on variables that are not on legitimate concerns, but possibly politically motivated. No, I do not trust the government to make the right moves on their own, and neither should you automatically do the same.
Summary: There is a legitimate concern as to the availability of weapons to those who are ineligible to own a firearm, or those who are mentally unstable who could pose a threat to society with the possession of a gun. I do not claim to know all of the answers, but I do have great respect for our rights, even yours. We do not need to, nor should we be willing to forfeit any right because there are those who refuse to respect valid laws, or because there are those within our society who may pose a threat because of mental issues. We need to address the problems, but we do not need to do so with the understanding that maybe we should give up our right to create a more friendly society. It does not work that way. You give up your rights, and they are gone, and should you wish to have them reinstated at a later date, it will not happen. Individual responsibility is the main component of gun ownership. If we have them, it is because it is our right to do so, but we must understand that we have to be safe and responsible or the consequences can be devastating in some situations. If you have children and you have a gun in your house, hiding the gun is not the answer. Children should not have access to the gun under any circumstances and your responsibility is to ensure that they never stumble upon it, because it is safely locked away from them. A gun can save your life, but that same gun can also end your life. If you do not understand that statement, it is possible you should not own a gun for that very reason. Be Safe and Responsible.
If I am a pedant, at least I make an effort to be short-winded about it.
Especially on other peeps' blogs.
It's this kind of remark that has the rest of the world shakes its head in amazement at America and it's 17,000 annual murders and 30,000 annual accidental shootings.