ONE – Their Title Is Unimaginative & Misleading

Their official name is Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a title so long that it begs for an acronym, but since M-D-A-G-S-A sounds like a Klingon curse word they are stuck with the monstrosity. Ironically the group was founded by a former communications executive named Shannon Watts; one might think that someone with that sort of expertise would have realized a thirteen syllable title isn’t very communicative.  And since when does “gun sense” equate to handing over more of our rights to the government?

No matter how you say it, the title is misleading in that you might assume the “gun sense” they are advocating is actually sensible and rational.  You see anti-gun groups have learned over the past few decades that being open about their real goal of erasing the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t work in a country where the majority of people rightfully distrust their government and value their personal liberties.  Unlike Watts, everyone is not wealthy enough to hire armed guards, affluent enough to live in gated communities, nor politically connected enough to have priority response from law enforcement.

The first stated goal of MDAGSA is to require background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases.  That is to say that if I want to sell or trade my Glock pistol to my friend for his AR-15 rifle I will first have to seek permission from the Federal or State government.  This is not sensible, nor will it stop violent criminals from obtaining either of these items.  By mandating that everyone seek the permission of the State to engage in otherwise legal commerce, this proposal actually accomplishes their unstated goal of transforming a constitutionally protected right into a state granted privilege.

TWO – They Formed as an Emotional Response to Sandy Hook

According to its founder, Moms Demand Action was founded December 15, 2012, EXACTLY one day after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, ostensibly because Watts did not have the metaphorical balls to tell her then 12-year-old son what had happened.  Was it formed along with a cadre of fellow concerned mothers who decided to study criminal statistics involving firearms, pouring over the research from numerous studies concerning the issue before finally deciding to found an organization to lobby government and advocate for their solutions in the media?  No of course not….

It was founded by one very affluent white woman living in Zionsville, Indiana who claims her son was psychologically afflicted by other shootings in the news and was shocked and appalled by the deaths of children belonging to other affluent parents.  With the median income for a household in Zionsville at $108,420 and a median value of owner-occupied housing units in the town at $355,800; it is a heavily gated community of approximately 14,160 people (as of 2010 Census), 94% of which is also White.  With a police response time of 2 ~ 3 minutes is it any wonder why Shannon Watts doesn’t see any merit in keeping a firearm in the home and/or carrying one on her person?  I guess all the poor brown-skinned children that died before Sandy Hook didn’t bother her son as much and weren’t important enough to motivate Mrs. Watts to get off her privileged white ass.

Are the proposals advocated by Shannon Watts new and original? Of course they’re not, they are the same list of bullshit pseudo-solutions that every other civilian disarmament group is pushing under the false mantra of ‘common sense’.  As is typical among gun control advocates, it doesn’t matter that none of the measures proposed by Watts are based on facts or data showing they will actually have any effect on violent crime. What matters to her is that her intent is noble and that this public display of good intent fulfills her emotional desire to feel good about herself.  Lets not forget that it also looks nice on her résumé along side the other multimillion dollar companies and government bodies for whom she has worked.  I’m sure she also draws a decent income as the head of her very own “non-profit” organization, people like Watts do not give up lucrative careers to chase political pipe dreams for free.

THREE – Their Proposals would not have stopped Adam Lanza

Had the groups proposals been law at the time, it would not have stopped Adam Lanza from carrying out his murderous rampage.  Having totally broken from reality, Adam murdered his own mother and then stole her rifle and handgun, both of which she had undergone a background check to purchase.  The proposed ban on modern rifles which they misidentify as ‘assault weapons’ and standard capacity ammunition magazines which hold more than 10 rounds would have made no difference either.  First, there is no functional difference between rifles erroneously labeled ‘assault weapons’ and other semi-automatic rifles which fire the same cartridge, the difference is purely cosmetic.  Second, ignoring the millions of standard capacity magazines in circulation, the time it takes to switch out three 10 round magazines over a single 30 round is perhaps a few seconds, no difference at all when your victims are defenseless children. The groups proposed laws are not sensible; they are, every one of them, senseless steaming piles of feel-good bullshit.  The only thing that stopped Lanza that day was a bullet to his head. The shame is that it was from his own pistol and on his own terms thanks to the existing feel-good ‘gun free school’ laws that prohibited someone working at the school from doing it prior to him making it to those classrooms full of children.

FOUR – They Censor their YouTube Channel

If you look at the group’s YouTube channel and click on any of the 65 videos you will find that both the ratings and comments section have been disabled.  Why?  The NRA doesn’t censor their videos.  I think that they fear their bullshit being called out and having to rationally defend their proposals.  The group has also been known to demand Facebook remove links to stories exposing the founders personal background.

Among the videos, the channel contains videos entitled FACES OF COURAGE which feature parents whose children were shot and killed. There is never any explanation given of how the group’s proposals would have changed anything for these grieving parents, merely sad music played over a tragic story with the non-sequitur argument that because these parents support the group’s proposals, the proposals must have merit.  Logically this is known as an ‘appeal to emotion’ and although it is irrational it can be effective in the short-term and with people who refuse to think for themselves.

FIVE – They Dishonestly Claimed To Be Victims of Intimidation

When the members of Open Carry Texas rallied in front of a meeting of four members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (imagine Moe, Larry, and Curly, then add Shemp and make them women), many bricks were publicly shat in response.  Using a misleading photograph, Watts and the mainstream media went big on the story.  As you’d expect, Mother-in-Chief Shannon Watts milked the story, casting herself and her Moms as victims of . . . wait for it . . . terrorism. Never forget that the civilian disarmament industry wants to cast gun rights advocates as criminals, thugs and psychopaths and they will lie through their teeth to do it.

Watts and her partners in the media began plastering a photo (above) which appears to show a group of armed individuals posed in an intimidating manner outside the restaurant where the mothers were holding their anti-gun quartet. Using this misleading photo some of the groups members even appeared in shadow to be interviewed claiming they felt their life was in danger.  Oh those poor souls being stalked and threatened by those evil gun owners. But then the truth of the misleading photo came to light when the photos taken face on revealed that there was no intimidation, it was merely a group photo to document the counter protest.

Was the group’s founder called out for her dishonest statements on national news channels?   Of course not, because liberals feel morally justified in lying their ass off in the name of advancing liberal causes like gun control.

The hardest part is only picking five….

by | Categories: Five Foolish Facts | Tagged: , , , , | Comments Off on Five Foolish Facts about Moms Demand Action

The core belief and assumption of all gun grabbers is that if the government could somehow confiscated all guns in America, legal and illegal, that murders would go down.  This belief is fundamentally flawed as they do not or refuse to grasp the difference between criminal law and prohibitionist law nor the principal of enforceability.

We already know that laws against murder don’t stop psychotic murderers, murderers who are confident in their chances of not being found, or murderers who simply don’t care for the risk (of which these three categories make up a vast majority of all first degree homicide cases).  We simply have these as law as a means of quarantine and rehabilitation (although our system is rather ineffective at that second part).  We get murderers off the street so they can’t murder anymore and hope, with false confidence, that being locked up for 25 years makes them learn their lesson.

The issue is how this translates to certain firearm restrictions.  It isn’t the gun that is getting punished, it’s the person.  Does violating a zoning ordinance make a potential mass killer fear the legal repercussions of going into a gun free zone?  No.  Was the prohibition against creating destructive devices something that gave Timothy McVeigh any moral pause about the illegality of blowing up a federal building?  No.

Can Dianne Feinstein point to one bombing that didn’t happen because bombs are illegal?  No.

Can Chuck Schumer point to one shooting that didn’t happen thanks to a gun free zone?  No.

How can gun grabbers then claim things that banning “ghost guns” is going to prevent homicide with home made guns (something of which I don’t think is a statistical reality)?  They can’t.

How can anyone claim things like banning magazines of a certain size will mean shooters will necessarily reload at the 15, I mean 10, I mean 7, I mean 5 round limit?  Am I supposed to think that the shooter at Aurora, a person who created a bomb so elaborate it took federal agents all day to disarm, couldn’t grasp basic welding and a screwdriver to turn the materials of multiple 10 round magazines into a single +25 round magazine?  They are not elaborate, they’re basically metal pez dispensers.

Laws have different enforceability.

I go 55 on the road because the flow of traffic is that limit, correlating to an established common standard, and because of the reality of getting pulled over for speeding; and I want to conserve gas.  It’s not exactly a nefarious thing to go 70 instead, it’s not even considered a criminal act. Many good people have had instances of speeding.

It’s a gross false equivalence to say that what keeps people from making bombs, from making illegal modifications to guns, and from commuting mass homicide is the fact they are illegal and that people with suicidal tendencies are worried the police may try to arrest them after they act.

by | Categories: Musing | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off on Gun Control: Criminal Law vs. Prohibitionist Law