Andy Parker is a Whackjob, But This is Clearly Not a Threat

I’d be tempted to link to this with “Why are gun control advocates so violent,” but I don’t really think it’s warranted in this case. Senator William Stanley suggests this message by Andrew Parker is a threat:

Late Tuesday, Parker sent this message to Sen. William M. Stanley Jr., R-Franklin County, via Facebook: “I’m going to be your worst nightmare you little bastard.”

Granted, I do think Parker is a strange duck; I don’t know of anyone whose first instinct after the loss of a loved one is to seek out any media publicity he can get before there’s even been a funeral. His statement certainly displays a lack of tact. But I think Stanley is playing this up a bit more than is honestly warranted.

“From the very beginning, he turned on me as if I had something to do with the horrible death of his daughter,” Stanley said. “It’s not rational, but nevertheless, when I was asked about it, I said, ‘Let him grieve. If I have to be the object as he works through this, fine.’ But this goes beyond the pale.”

Hey, welcome to collective guilt — it’s what these people peddle. You are responsible for their personal tragedies, even if you had nothing to do with them. Disagreement is enough to make you an accessory to murder.

“It is legitimate. I am going to be his worst nightmare,” Parker said. “He and Parrish are both little cowards. Anything I say to him and post on his website, I will take full credit for.”

Parker may not be violent, but he’s pretty clearly a loose cannon. He’ll probably end up being a liability to their movement if he keeps this up. Not that I’m one to complain. Every incarnation of the gun control movement has had to deal with freaks and weirdos. I’m not sure why Bloomberg should get a pass on that just because has enough of his own money to not deal with them.


18 thoughts on “Andy Parker is a Whackjob, But This is Clearly Not a Threat”

  1. I think people like Parker should be treated exactly the same way they would treat us. That means of they would call it a threat, we should call it a threat.

  2. I am waiting for the Barbara Graham moment of this new Gun Control era. That and the new Rosie.

    My prediction: He or she will come via CSGV or NGVAC.

  3. All gun grabbers are Jadegold. Just some control thier impulses better.

    Seriously, how many of us have had a mentally ill troll that sounds EXACTLY like this.

  4. In addition to being a loose cannon Parker also has a strong desire for attention and gratification.

    Lodging a complaint with the police is prudent even if it is not a true-threat legally speaking. Because it starts a paper trail.

    This is especially useful if Parker, stymied at a lack of attention, starts to get more… stridently worrying in his outbursts.

    (It’s like how a restraining order doesn’t /stop/ a bad guy, but it does help if there is any subsequent use of force investigation. This is not to say Parker’s actions warrant an RO or that Parker is a risk of violence.)

    1. The Jack makes a very good point. The law takes a very ordered view of protecting yourself and laying the groundwork up front is critical. If you have a person venting their ire in your direction, and you fail to take it seriously, you’re setting yourself up for a situation later that will have fewer good choices.

      There could be other comments or exchanges which we’re not seeing that have led up to this moment and these exchanges with a legislator aren’t generally made public.

      In times gone by, Parker’s accusation of cowardice could have resulted in the nomination of Seconds with a meeting to settle the matter in a duel. It’s easy to make judgments on the internet when it’s not your character being publicly assassinated.

  5. Doesn’t Parker have any family who want to intervene? This guy just needs to take a long vacation and work through his grief.

    1. It’s going to get to the point where he will rant on endlessly at every possible meeting that they’ll all stop talking to him because he’s disrupting their lives.

    2. Like all the anti-gun “Victims” out there, they were anti-gun BEFORE tragedy struck them, and rather than proper grieving, they used it as a springboard (and frankly a cudgel) to further their PERSONAL agenda at the expense of their “loved ones”.

      Andy Parker is obviously a malignant narcissist, maybe with other emotional problems. I suspect his family has given up on getting him the help he needs decades ago.

      1. I give a lot of leeway to someone who has a loss like this. There is no manual for grief. People behave differently.

        1. You, of course are 100% correct, at the base but.

          #1. I spend a LOT of time looking into antis publications and how they operate in order to “Red Team” for our side, and his profile fits so perfectly with so many prominent anti-gun activists, that I HAVE to call it out.

          #2. If my wife and daughter were murdered by a black man, that would NOT be an excuse for me to claim that all blacks are murderous criminals like the one who did the killing. Or if a woman was raped that is not permission for her to apply that hateful act to ALL MEN.

          Mr. Parker’s daughter was murdered by a black, mentally ill, gay, “Progressive” democrat, with cats, with a firearm he legally bought.

          He’s not attacking blacks, men, gays, cat people, or “Progressives” (because he’s one of them…oh and just because we’re now talking about TWO “Progressives” who have committed violent acts/threats, that doesn’t give me permission to call for the lockup of all Democrats!)

          But he IS going after guns and gun owners….but he was going after those BEFORE this happened, just now people are listening.

          So yeah, I allow the man to grieve…up until he partnered up with Bloomberg and got on any news agency that would listen and started calling for his political hobby horse.

          I’m sorry for his loss, but I had NOTHING to do with it, and he has no right to grieve in that way without me actively responding.

    1. Actually, for as unhinged and on the verge of violence as a lot of antis seem to be, I don’t think that would be a good idea.

    1. And here’s the problem with both appologizing and standing by incindiary comments of this nature. (Appology implies guilt and knowledge that your actions were wrong. While standing by implies you condone said actions and that they were intentional. Not a good combination.)

      As well as having a clear history of such rhetoric being directed to multiple public figures.

      If Parker ever *does* make a statement that in a grey area where it could be taken as a /true threat/ or, heaven forbid, does something physical.

      Then this all shows a history of behavior, which even if it does not show up in court would certianly influence investigating officers and prosecutors.

      Of coure an all caps promise to “BEAT YOUR LITTLE ASS WITH MY BARE HANDS” may be taken as hyperbole but if there *was* an altercation between the two men. Well guess which one has discoverable evidence of premeditation and malice?

    2. And Stanley’s own statement was also unwise and one can readilly see how it muddies the water.

      Lesson learnt: Be very careful what you say with regards to threatening use of force, especially if dealing with a nut and/or if you are a public figure

  6. It’s pretty clear to me that Andy is running for Senate in that district. He’s trying to turn himself into Virginia’s version of the New York representative whose husband got murdered. Just keep using this incident to discredit him and he goes away eventually.

Comments are closed.