Aimee Patton

A pleasantly eccentric take on politics

Dear Charles Cotton,


I needed to reach out to you, Mr. Cotton, because there are few things in life that cause me so much shock that I am speechless for a moment.  My friends will tell you that this RARELY happens.  I admit the last time I was speechless was when Roseanne Barr belted out the National Anthem in 1990.


As a National Rifle Association Board Member, you said this about the pastor who was killed in Charleston and I was speechless after reading it,


“And he voted against concealed-carry. Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead. Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.”


Translation – The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  Gee where have I heard that before?


You immediately did damage control saying you made this statement as a “private citizen” and not representing the NRA.


Chuck, lets address this private citizen to private citizen.   I’m just a snarky blogger who writes a lot about gun control.  I’m not paid by any gun control association.  I don’t get any money for writing this blog except about a few bucks on ads that amount to a nice dinner at Applebees.  I’m just a writer fed up with gun deaths in America.


<cue Arena Rock Music>


Chuck, buckle in for the ride, because here is the deal.  You and I both know in your “official capacity” as Mr. Cotton, Board Member for the NRA, that your organization has lobbied against federal studies on gun deaths in America so it’s hard to even know how bad the real problem is.  The NRA has lobbied the state governments against background checks, permits and safety training for gun owners.  Your organization has made sure that laws are in place guns can be gifted to family members or purchased at gun shows without much over-site at all.


So technically, some might say that your organization could be to blame for the shooter obtaining his weapon from his family member after two arrests.


But I’m not going to blame the NRA for the Charleston shooting.  I’m going to keep the blame with the shooter, because that’s where it belongs.  You, however, are going to take that insensitive step and blame the victims in this whole massacre saying they could have been armed to prevent this.


Oh Chuck….here is where you are not only insensitive jerk, but also wrong.


From the Washington Post,

“A recent report from the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group, analyzing FBI data found that “guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.” In 2012, there were 8,342 criminal gun homicides, compared to only 259 justifiable gun homicides, according to the report.”


Translation – more guns aren’t stopping homicides.  More guns are increasing homicides in this country.


And finally this is called the icing on the cake –


“And last year, an FBI report on mass shootings found that unarmed citizens were three times more likely to successfully stop an active shooter than armed private citizens. Armed civilians stopped only 4 percent of the mass shooting incidents in the FBI’s study.”



You can continue to kid yourself as a Board Member of the NRA or as a private citizen.  I don’t care what hat you are wearing when you decide to spout of this nonsense, but at the end of the day it’s just that – complete nonsense.



You owe the families of the shooting victims an apology.  With or without a gun, that shooting was going to happen that day.  That shooter accomplished his mission and now we are left as a nation to mourn, comfort the survivors and figure out how to prevent tragedies like this from happening in the future.  The lives of our citizens depend on it.



Yours for not blaming gun victims for their own deaths,






13 thoughts on “My open letter to the NRA Board Member on his jerky response to the #CharlestonShootings

  1. mikemiller75 says:

    Right on. I shared it. Thanks for say it.

  2. stevenhb13 says:

    Well-written Aimee. His statement was just nonsense.

  3. Black Rifle says:

    why do these murderers continue to head to “gun free zones” to complete their heinous act? ohh, that’s right–no one there to stop them.

    1. Aimee Patton says:

      Hi Black Rifle,

      In this case he went to an all black church to kill black people. The sad realization is he was very successful.

      Thanks for writing.

      1. Black Rifle says:

        What was the case before that? and the one before that? and the one before that? are you making this about race now or guns? is the NRA to blame for racism too? you completely dodge my point with you “Captain Obvious” comment.

      2. Marvin says:

        He didn’t target an all black gun range, or a Black Panther party. However, blaming the victims is foolish and insensitive. I am pro gun rights. But, too much of a good thing seldom works out. We need background checks, and mandatory, annual training for anyone who chooses to carry a firearm. I see way too many people at gun ranges who have no concept of muzzle awareness. They keep their fingers on the triggers while walking, carrying the firearm, and IMHO, have no businesses owning a firearm. 90% of the people carrying a firearm (just a guess) would be worthless in an armed conflict. I’m a combat veteran, and have seen what happens when the shtf.

  4. Pistol Pete says:

    My open letter to the Aimee Patton blogger on her predictable response to the Charleston shootings.

    Dear Aimee Patton,

    I wanted to reach out to you Ms. Patton and firstly thank you for helping me to win a wager, as I bet a friend that you would absolutely be posting an anti-gun, anti-NRA screed, in the wake of the Charleston S.C. shooting. You’re so predictable and repetitive that I felt quite comfortable in placing the wager, the only uncertainty was how fast you would post your comments.

    As is your modus operandi, you’ve selected a quote from someone you don’t know, have never met, but whose position on an issue stands in stark contrast to your own view. You are a hunter who seeks her prey, and then savagely attempts to shred their position via selective editing, biased references, and twisted misguided logic. All the while mixing in some humor, snarkiness, and loads of passive-aggressive attacks. Your quote this time was:

    “And he voted against concealed-carry. Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead. Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.”

    And, what was so extremely offensive about this statement that you claimed to temporarily lose your voice….your monotonous liberal drone of a voice? This man apparently was expressing his strong opinion that individuals should be able to exercise a right to conceal-carry a weapon. He believes that if more citizens exercised this right, then whenever a mentally insane societal misfit pulled a gun and began shooting the innocent, they could be neutralized much quicker, saving lives, rather than waiting for them to finish their insanity, flee, and be pursued in a manhunt. Are you familiar with the two escaped New York prisoners who remain at-large? What if Dylann Roof had fled Charleston, arrived in the Kansas City metro, and pursued more opportunities to shoot churchgoers, or students, or others who disagreed with his insane thinking?

    You conveniently provide your own biased translation for someone else’s thought process and words, and then proceed on your merry passive-aggressive way, in a scorched earth manner.

    The next item of interest occurs when you write: “So technically, some might say that your organization could be to blame for the shooter obtaining his weapon from his family member after two arrests.” Technically, I suppose yes, but only in a skewed non-technical looney liberal fashion. I mean for that matter, “technically” someone could claim that Aimee Patton’s attack blog was a contributing factor in the Charleston church shooting, as it contributes to the coarse partisan rhetoric which inflames tension on both sides of the duopoly that passes for political process in this country.

    Now, shortly later, you cite the Violence Policy Center, yet fail to inform your readers of who exactly is this group. Allow me to retroactively make the disclosure which you carelessly omitted. The Violence Policy Center (VPC), is a national tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Washington, DC. They enthusiastically embrace their description as “the most effective…anti-gun rabble rouser in Washington.” The VPC was founded in 1988 by Josh Sugarmann, and advocates for gun control. And who is Josh Sugarmann? SURPRISE!! Mr. Sugarmann is the former communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. And where is Josh Sugarmann from? BUCKLE UP COWGIRL!! He grew up in Newtown, CT…..YES!!….the very same Newtown of Sandy Hook Elementary School infamy, in which you were told one horrific tale, in an attempt to pass gun-control legislation, yet upon further investigation, the official narrative has so many holes that it’s a SWISS CHEESE fairytale.

    Next up, your so-called “icing on the cake” in which you quote…“And last year, an FBI report on mass shootings found that unarmed citizens were three times more likely to successfully stop an active shooter than armed private citizens. Armed civilians stopped only 4 percent of the mass shooting incidents in the FBI’s study.” Aimee!! Are you purposely lying to readers with this nonsense, or are you simply incapable of using logical reasoning? Anyone with a normal functioning brain can tell you that if you’re in a group of people and one begins randomly shooting the others, those armed with their own firearm have a much higher odds of protecting themselves and stopping the shooter. Another way of saying “armed civilians stopped only 4 percent of mass shooting incidents” would be “in 96 percent of mass shooting incidents those in harm’s way found themselves without a firearm in which to defend themselves.” So, this would actually be an argument IN FAVOR of concealed-carry or open-carry. You’re purposely misleading the gullible with flawed statistics supplied by those aggressively advocating for gun restrictions.

    How about we agree on a compromise? If you want nothing to do with firearms, so be it! Don’t buy them, don’t borrow them, don’t shoot them, never even touch a firearm. That’s perfectly fine with me, and frankly, given your attitude, you should totally abstain from exercising this right. However, on the other hand, those citizens who do choose to exercise their legal right to own a firearm expect that you’ll stay the hell out of their business.

    I think we both agree that the alleged shooter in Charleston was a mentally insane young man. From what I’ve read, he was an unemployed 10th grade dropout, not in school, mentally unbalanced, taking prescription drugs for psychological problems, had a history of abusing narcotics, had been in trouble with law enforcement, was on their radar, and somehow had the funding to travel widely and ability to purchase a $700.00 handgun. Have you seen all the photos in the media of the shooter posing at various sites? Ever wonder who took those photos? Who paid for the travel, lodging, food, and gas? Do you find it strange that a 10th grade dropout would write his Manifesto and put it online? Are you aware that he had black friends? Does that sound like a white supremacist to you?

    Aimee, quit repeating the same thing every week, just regurgitating talking points from the DNC, it’s boring and monotonous. And for those who would accuse me of unfairly attacking this snarky blogger, I happen to think she’s intelligent, as evidenced by some clever writing, but for some reason she’s chosen to be a one-trick pony on this blog, and I’m merely encouraging her to be an equal opportunity snarker. Encouragement as in the form of a 2 X 4 over the head!!!

    Yours unruly,

    Pistol Pete

    1. Aimee Patton says:

      Hi Pete,

      You are my first open letter so that makes me feel so special. Thanks for taking the time to write to me. I will take your points to heart, but in the end I think you and I just have to agree to disagree.

      Have a great day!

      1. Pistol Pete says:

        I thank Ms. Patton for the classy reply, albeit brief and perfunctory. As we said above, and am happy to repeat again, we believe Ms. Patton is an intelligent person with a flair for creative writing, it’s just that she repeatedly takes her talking points verbatim from the political left wing and thus muffles her own voice by being so predictable.
        Yes, we will agree to disagree.
        And I wish you a great day as well.

      2. Aimee Patton says:

        Thank you Mr. Pete. Who is “we” exactly? What I appreciate most is you calling me intelligent. That made my day!

        Best of luck to you.

  5. IssueIsMentalIllness says:

    Dear Ms. Patton,
    Today is Friday June 26, and I’m hoping to reach you before your next posting.
    You see, I have this sense of clairvoyance, and it’s telling me that you’re about to post your thoughts on why we should ban the Confederate flag, etc., just as so many other left extremist liberals have been doing over this past week. Now, far be it from me to prevent you from expressing your opinion, but if I’m correct, it would be only fair to forewarn you that I will roast you with a factual rebuttal.
    Have a pleasantly eccentric weekend and please know your American history before commenting on the faux controversy concerning the Confederate flag.
    Thank you

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: