Ann Coulter Opens Her Mouth, Stupid Rant Emerges

shutterstock_5457793It’s been a few months since I’ve had the urge to tell Ann Coulter to shut the hell up. This is only due to the fact that I have read exactly zero news stories about her until today. Every time this woman opens her mouth, vile stupidity emerges.

This time she is ranting about gun control. Well, sort of. It starts with gun control, then moves to rent controlled apartments, abortion, celebrities and their bodyguards, and crazy people wandering the subway system of New York. She was so riled up I was hoping the climax of the video would be a stroke.  Alas – no luck.

Her rant was a response to the ongoing discussion about releasing the names and addresses of gun owners. She’s obviously against that. But she goes on to make statements and parallels that make absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

Why aren’t we getting names of recently paroled criminals? People with gun permits, by definition, do not have criminal records. Why can’t we get the criminal records? No, you can’t get that.

Um, yes you can. Criminal records are accessible to the public. Anyone can search for them.

She really out does herself with her next rant, though:

Why can’t we get a record of women who have had abortions? They get money from Planned Parenthood; they get money from Medicare and Medicaid, much of these are tax subsidies. I think mothers might want to know what other women on their street might be willing to murder a child.

Wow. So making a decision about your own body and reproductive future is akin to murdering a child? You are a moron. Does anyone even understand why this woman is still talking? Why is anyone asking her about anything? She makes her own party look bad. I have to believe that Republicans are not as crazy as this woman. I’m not even sure why right-wing news media outlets like Fox News even give her a platform to spew this nonsense.

How dare you imply that women who exercise their right to choose are in the same category as some maniac wielding a semi-automatic rifle and killing children. Even you can’t believe that makes any sense. Can you? Are you really this vile, or is this all a ploy to sell books?

I am very pro-gun control, and I’m not even sure about how I feel about releasing the names and addresses of gun owners to the public. But I’m not going to use the issue to push every single belief I have about every single hot-bed political issue out there.

Get a grip, Ann.

(photo: Andrew F. Kazmierski/

Be Sociable, Share!
You can reach this post's author, Maria Guido, on twitter.
Be Sociable, Share!
  • Lastango

    “I am very pro-gun control, and I’m not even sure about how I feel about releasing the names and addresses of gun owners to the public.”


    Well, here’s something to help with the second part of that.

    It would be better if you objected to the release of names and addresses on the grounds that it was a vicious, politically-motivated assault on the safety and privacy of your co-citizens. But, like conservative speakers who are routinely harassed, barred, and shouted-down on college campuses, everyone a progressive disagrees with is always a fair target for any abuse and must be destroyed by any means necessary.

    BTW, I see that yesterday a woman protected herself and her two kids by shooting a home invader with her pistol. Six shots, five hits. Under the circumstances, that’s pretty good gun control.

    How do you feel about her right to own that handgun?

    • jessica

      Honey, no one is out to abuse or destroy you. Calm down. Also, where do you get off thinking that every gun owner is a conservative and that the actions of a single newspaper (a poor decision IMHO) signals some kind of grand conspiracy against you or even conservatives? My god.

      Also… I mean are you not aware that some groups (who are typically quite conservative) have before published names, addresses, etc of people who work at abortion clinics? Following your logic that means that conservatives are out to abuse and destroy segments of the population.

    • Paul White

      I never saw that poster insinuate, in any way shape or form, that he approved of people publishing the home address of abortion providers. That’s an equally scummy practice.

      In that newspapers state, you have to have a permit to have a handgun–to possess, not carry. Most of those people probably don’t have a carry permit, so if they’re not home the gun is. If they have a brain in their head, they’ve got a safe for them, but this does highlight great places for thieves to at least try to score some easily sold weapons. I’d be livid as well. It’s also the simple fact that it isn’t your business what I have in my house. If they published a list of everyone with a big screen TV and their addresses, I’d be mad too. Or if the newspaper here published a list of all permit holders for exotic animals (I’m one) and their addresses.

      I took her “no we can’t do that” line to mean that the newspaper wouldn’t do that, not that no one could find out criminal records.

      You just made me defend Coulter. I need a bleach bath now.

    • jessica

      You need to read what I wrote again. 1) Said I disagree with what the newspaper did. 2) Never said the poster (Lastango) was implying that it is ok to publish names and addresses of abortion clinic staffers, merely said that to imply that there is some vast conspiracy to harm, harass, etc conservatives based on the actions of one newspaper is kind of a stretch and used the abortion clinic publishing as an example to show that there are crazy people out there- on both sides of the political spectrum, with their own agendas (the newspaper one one end and the prolife groups on the other) who do wrong to serve their agenda.

    • Lastango

      “Honey, no one is out to abuse or destroy you.”


      And the first rule of Fight Club is — never talk about Fight Club. Or long-range strategies to undermine democracy and consolidate state power by disarming the citizenry.

    • AlbinoWino

      Well, aside from some occasional anecdotal evidence, I look more to statistics. If people want to have a firearm for protection, fine. But I do find it interesting that studies over and over again assert that having a gun in your home leads to a higher incidence of homicide by firearm and even greater for a suicide by firearm. ( I don’t doubt you can find the situations where someone’s weapon saves them but at the end of the day a gun in the home statistically doesn’t make you safer. Hundreds of children die every year when families fail to lock up their firearms correctly. A safe is a must but if you have an intruder, you’re having another obstacle to get to that weapon more quickly.

      So please tell me again how having a gun in the home of the Newtown shooter was a good thing. You could ask the killer’s mother but she’s obviously dead. Think how many lives she could have saved by having a firearm in her home….oh wait, that’s right. It made it easier for her disturbed son to gun down a bunch of children.

    • Paul White

      Check out the NCVS’s estimates on defensive gun uses. They estimate several 10s of thousands a year. The problem is it’s hard to tell what the outcome would have been in any given instance…would that intruder you scared off/shot have just robbed or, or was it going to be a lot worse? We just flat out cannot know with any degree of certainty.

      I’m not particularly worried about basic safety; we use a gun safe that’s got a combo that we won’t tell the kid(s).