Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Ad: Beyond the Pale?

Post Sandy Hook, the gun control industry is in high gear, taking their civilian disarmament campaign into low places. Specifically, the gutter. This ad by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) may not be the worst example of the antis’ shameless, tasteless exploitation of a horrific tragedy I’ve ever seen, but it’s certainly one of the worst examples of the antis’ shameless, tasteless exploitation of a horrific tragedy I’ve ever seen. I’m especially impressed by the editing. Not just the juxtaposition . . .

In the original video the Congressman says “And for as long as I can remember, my father always had this rifle real handy just to keep us safe [italicized bit removed by CSVG]” and ”I’m John Barrow, and long before I was born, my grandfather used this little Smith & Wesson here to help stop a lynching.

CSGV spokesman Ladd Everitt defended the omissions to foxnews.com:

“We’re not here to run campaign ads for John Barrow. We’re not his PR team,” group spokesman Ladd Everitt told FoxNews.com.

Asked about the omission of the line about stopping a lynching, Everitt said he was “unable to confirm” Barrow’s claim about his grandfather.

“I think most Americans would understand that if you look at the history of lynchings … there were probably precious few instances where white men with guns prevented lynchings,” he said. Everitt added that the point was to highlight Barrow’s ties to the NRA and resistance to new calls for gun control.

“We didn’t have time to run his entire campaign ad,” he said.

See how that works? The ends justify the means, and that means there are no depths to which the gun control industry will sink to further their agenda. Shame on them.

Oh and I wonder how many African Americans would have been lynched had Southern Democrats not denied them their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Just sayin’ . . .

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

54 Responses to Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Ad: Beyond the Pale?

  1. avatarNick says:

    Do the “undecided” people really fall for this BS?

    • avatarPascal says:

      Given the Presidential election results, it is safe to say yes.

      I have said before and I will say it again, it is a propaganda campaign

    • avatarduke nukem says:

      i was undecided. and im telling you if the”undecided” fall for this bullsh*t then they shouldnt have any weapons at all. this feels exactly like a peta ad.

      • avatarEvan says:

        I used to believe their BS, but eventually realized that it is all a lie. Ironically it was their PR that made me go pro gun all the way, I finally realized it was an attempt to disarm all civilians after hearing about the DC ban and the New Orleans confiscations.

      • avatarWilliam says:

        PETA, who are mass murderers of animals, behind the scenes. Ask someone in Virginia Beach.

    • avatarBill J. says:

      Absolutely, the media is in the process of shaping public opinion as they have on every issue facing the country. The real power is in the hands of the networks and they don’t like guns.

    • avatarWC says:

      The ad might pull on the heartstrings of a few emotional “undecideds”, but I think more cerebral “undecideds” will be turned off by the sleaziness, and lack of genuine points or plan.

    • avatarRon says:

      Yes they do. Everyday.
      That is why we have to take every opportunity possible to present the truth, especially when fence sitters are present.
      Indecision on any subject is the result of ignorance.
      The more knowledge a person acquires, the more decisive he becomes.
      Unfortunately there is a great deal of misleading (intentional or not) information available to the uninformed.

      This is especially true with regard to guns and gun issues.
      Most have no knowledge of guns that was not acquired from television or movies. This is true even among those considering becoming gun owners.
      A person shopping for a car, home, furniture etc. will usually have some knowledge of what they want, but most looking for their first gun ( in my experience ) have no idea where to begin.
      I have lost track of the number of times I have been told or have overheard someone say they would never buy a revolver because it doesn’t have a safety. One woman told me that not having a safety on a revolver was “just plain nuts”. Another was afraid to hold a revolver with the hammer down and the cylinder open because it might “go off “.

      Is it any wonder these people are susceptible to this kind of crap?
      Especially when it is the only information most are exposed to.
      If you don’t watch the outdoor type channels ( and most don’t ) you are not going to get factual information on guns / self defense or see advertisments for firearms. No “regular” channels carry this information.
      Even a knowledgeable person will believe the new Kia Rio is faster than the new Corvette if he is told, hears and reads it often enough.
      Imagine how much effort is required to convience the person who has no knowledge of the Rio or Vet.
      If knowledge is not acquired through lifes everyday events, it must be sought out. Few, if any, will seek information about a subject in which they have no personal interest.

      This is why we have to take every opportunity to present the truth, especially when fence sitters are present.
      It is left to us to start them on the right path.

  2. avatarDavid W. says:

    CSGV has no shame.

  3. avatarAharon says:

    “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead in the future”.
    ~~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on the Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

    • avatarLucas D. says:

      That’s a made-up line. The real fact that he disarmed the Jewish population before implementing his final solution is much more compelling anyway; use it instead.

      • avatarAharon says:

        What is the source of your statement that it is made up line? When I searched the quote it is being overwhelmingly attributed to Hitler with one or two sources saying it was not Hitler. If proved the quote is not from Hitler I’ll use instead what I choose.

    • avatarDucky says:

      Unfortunately this has been debunked.
      http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership

      I haven’t found anything confirming the quote, but quite a bit debunking it.

    • avatarAnonymous says:

      See

      http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusAntiGunQuotes.htm

      While the above ‘quote’ makes a nice T-shirt, there are numerous problems with this alleged statement. (1) It violates the rule of not beginning a sentence with a number. (2) It isn’t phrased in Hitler’s style. (3) Major changes to the German gun laws occurred in 1928 and 1931 (under the Weimar Republic) and in 1938 (under the Nazi’s). No significant changes happened in the gun registration laws in 1935. Furthermore, the changes in 1928 and 1931 were designed to disarm the Nazis and Communists and therefore it is doubtful that Hitler would trumpet the success of any law aimed at his goon squads.

      and

      http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html

      This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date given (*in alternate versions, the words “This year…” are replaced by “1935…” has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been a need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government were already in effect. The Nazi Weapons Law (or Waffengesetz) which further restricted the possession of militarily useful weapons and forbade trade in weapons without a government-issued license was passed on March 18, 1938.

      The citation usually given for this quote is a jumbled mess, and has only three major clues from which to work. The first is the date, which does not correspond (even approximately) to a date on which Hitler made a public speech, and a check of the texts of Hitler’s speeches does not reveal a quotation resembling this (which is easily understandable when you realize that “Hitler” is commenting on a non-existent law). The second clue is the newspaper reference, which if translated into German resembles the title of a newspaper called Berliner Tageblatt, and a check of the issue for that date reveals that the page and column references given are to the arts and culture page! No Hitler speech appears in the pages of Berliner Tageblatt on that date, or dates close to it, because there was no such speech to report.

      Finally, the citation includes a proper name “Eberhard Beckmann,” which is sometimes cited as “by Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann,” which is an important clue itself, because it reveals that the citation was fabricated by someone who had so little knowledge of the German language that they were unaware that “Einleitung” isn’t the fellow’s first name! The only “Eberhard Beckmann” which has been uncovered thus far did indeed write introductions, but he was a journalist for a German broadcasting company after WWII, and he wrote several introductions to photography books, one of which was photos of the German state of Hesse (or Hessia), which may be the source of the curious phrase “Abschied vom Hessenland!” which appears in the citation. This quotation, however effective it may be as propaganda, is a fraud.

      and

      http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/faq.htm#faq02

      Question: Is the following an authentic Hitler quotation?

      “This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.”
      – Adolph Hitler, 1935

      Answer: No, it’s a hoax. At least, nobody has been able to verify it.

    • avatarA. B. says:

      Totally made up, Hitler never said that. Do the research on a quote before you use it.

  4. avatarBill J. says:

    Shameful, I fear there are dark days ahead.

  5. avatarSammy says:

    That ad is disgraceful. Just goes to show that there will be a no holds bared, no level to low to sink to, no shirt to bloody or small to wave, in this fight. I think this is direct blow back from the NRA ad about politico’s kids having armed protection. And, as usual, the White House will fight this war by proxy through organizations us as CSGV
    that see nothing wrong with taking things out of context and presenting the most loathsome profile of gun owners possible. I wonder which Hollywood cohort produced this bullsh!t hit piece. We are truly in for the fight of our lives.

  6. avatarduke nukem says:

    wow this idiots are exploiting the horrible incidents that happen to aid in their cause. shame on them. notice no one can dislike or comment on the video. they dont want to hear anyone.

  7. avatarRopingdown says:

    If the MSM ran pictures of all the seven-year-olds run over by trucks and cars backing up over kids last week around the US, the masses wouldn’t have guns on the brain, and would instead be insisting every vehicle have a backup camera…and they’d save a heck-of-a-lot more children. Focus is all, the agenda isn’t about the kids, and the average American isn’t setting that agenda. When the government gets to decide whether they themselves are edging into tyranny, one assumes they’ll answer “no.” It’s about safely raising sales taxes, or safely busing in Union hordes to take over a Wisconsin capitol. It’s not about the kids.

  8. avatarIvy Mike says:

    The Gun-Controllers using the same emotional tactics as the Uterus-Controllers.

    Yes, it’s disgusting. Both ways.

    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? ~verse 38, chapter 3, The Jefferson Bible

    Want to start winning elections from the gun-grabbers? Quit trying to obsessively control the womenfolk.

    • avatarMerits says:

      Just wondering, if a baby could use a gun as well as you, and ol Dr Abortion was about to stab a scalpel in his brain, do you think he would use it?

      Guns are tools. They are used to protect innocent life. Your inconsistency is amazing. I’m not interested in winning elections at the expense of innocents for the right to have tools to protect other innocents–even if it would work.

      • avatarIvy Mike says:

        Want to keep loosing elections, Merit? Keep up the right-wing flavor of emotional bleeding-heart crap that is merely a pretext for your desire to grab control of the choices other people make in their lives that is none of your business.

        Women voters look at your sleeze and call bullshit just like you look at this ad and call bullshit.

        • avatarMerits says:

          I’d like to win elections as much as anyone, but I won’t sacrifice one principle to save another. When the’yre so closely related you should easily see this. iYou can call my willingness to speak for those who can’t ‘bleeding heart crap’, but it’s actually about stopping bleeding heads and arms and legs. Millions dead and the living that remain have mental scars and the resulting twisted attitude towards human life, and you think I care about elections? I’m about freedom, but not the false idea of freedom from consequences. You’re responsible for where your bullets you fire, literally and sexually, end up.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Then lose your rights to the gun-grabbers, just because you can’t take your control-freak hands off a woman’s reproductive choice rights.

          Here’s reality, dude:

          “One key to Obama’s success: social issues. Nearly two times as many women as men rank matters like abortion…”
          http://news.msn.com/politics/women-voters-key-coalition-in-obama-2nd-term-victory

          Enjoy losing much?

        • avatarfoggy says:

          I can’t believe that I am saying this, but I liked you better when you were trolling about the “standing army”.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Not much for freedom to control your own body or the complete 2A, are you, foggy?

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      Ivy Mike enough with your abortion comments — these discussions are about firearms.

      Maybe you didn’t read my response to one of your other posts. I fully support the full liberty of any woman to do whatever she wants up until the point that her actions cause the death of another. People like myself only oppose abortion because it ends a human life — the life of the unborn baby.

      Your arguments about necessary conditions for a human life to have rights (an unborn baby is a human life), undermines all rights because conditional rights are no longer rights, but privileges subject to majority consent. Thus if the rights of an unborn child are subject to majority consent, why shouldn’t a citizen’s right to bear arms be subject to majority consent? All you do is open up a giant pissing match to see who can shout the loudest rather than stick to simple, absolute truths.

      Our Declaration of Independence stated it so eloquently. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Any concerns or arguments you have that unborn babies are not part of the human race and are not endowed with unalienable rights is a topic for another forum.

      • avatarIvy Mike says:

        Want to keep sounding like the gun-control ad above and lose elections because women voters call bullshit on your dancing in blood? Looks as if.

        • avatarduke nukem says:

          stop sounding like a retard. the elections are long over. if you have nothing to give to this page then leave. ive seen you around and all you do is complain on how the republicans lost. oh well. get over it. were in a bigh discussion about firearms AND NOTHING ELSE!!!

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Why do you want to stick your head in the sand and give away the next election to the gun-control freaks?

          * Hands off your neighbor’s gun.
          * Hands off your neighbor’s uterus.

          Freedom wins elections. Americans hate busybodies.

  9. avatarGoldenboy says:

    Comments and Ratings have been disabled for that video. Because they know this garbage would get called out for the hatchet job it is.

  10. avatarDamon says:

    And they called the NRA’s ad about Obama’s kids having armed guards disgraceful. Too bad they can’t see past their own bigotry.

  11. avatargreg says:

    They are eating their own. Barrow is a(barely) blue dog Democrat. He is also the last one of his genotype in the House from Georgia. He is also(hearsay) less than admirable.

  12. avatarRalph says:

    This is beyond the pale? No. Taking away the Constitutional rights of Americans, now that’s beyond the pale. This is just character assassination by a bunch of scumb@gs.

  13. avatarChas says:

    And the gun-haters continue to dance in the blood of those murdered children. You can’t get more despicable than that.

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      The Gun-Grabbers aren’t the only control-freaks dancing in blood. Both sides need to stop.

      This week marks the 40th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. One would think that after 40 years, this right would be beyond question. Yet, conservative activists continue in their efforts to make this right more difficult to exercise while holding out hopes of striking it down. As I began preparing my sermon commemorating the Roe decision, I wondered if reproductive rights activists and gun owners might actually become allies, of sorts

      Gun rights advocates could learn from women’s struggles
      The Rev. Dr. Stanley Sears, Special to The Citizen
      The CITIZEN (Auburn, NY)
      http://auburnpub.com/lifestyles/gun-rights-advocates-could-learn-from-women-s-struggles/article_9519ab9f-7b8a-5256-b6d6-a095cd302307.html?comment_form=true

      • avatarMerits says:

        Holy cow. Reverend? Sermon commemorating killing nameless kids?You’re at the wrong place. Look up NARAL.org or planned non-parenthood. I find most of the gun enthusiasts here are interested in the use of firearms to save life. The lack of ‘control’ you advocate is anarchy.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Problem reading?

          “In fact, women seeking abortions endure far more intrusive and condescending experiences than gun purchasers [...] My hope is that gun owners will keep this in mind when they write their checks or call in their credit cards to support politicians who have made reproductive rights so onerous for women — including women gun owners.

          Can’t learn anything from that? Then expect to lose more elections.

  14. avatarGreg Camp says:

    Note that they show a revolver and a bolt-action rifle and then images of “assault weapons” with the same level of contempt. So much for their promise that they’re not coming for the guns of hunters or for those good six-round guns.

    • avatarjwm says:

      after that mess of a law passed in NYS, behind closed doors, I doubt any one can still say the anti’s aren’t after all guns. Not just EBR’s and hi cap mags.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        hi cap mags

        So they’ve got you believing that 10 rounds is “high capacity” now? They want to ban standard capacity magazines.

        • avatarjwm says:

          Now they’ve got us turning against onr another over nomenclature? Way to support their cause.

  15. avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

    E-mail Barrow, give him your support. Not a bad thing to do. Here’s what I sent:

    Dear Mr. Barrow,

    Though I’m not in your district, I thank you for your service to this county. I recently saw the shameful hit add put out by the so called Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Their emnity speaks well of your character, sir.

    Patriotic Americans all over the nation stand with you in your opposition to new federal infringments of our sacred right to keep and bare arms.

  16. avatarJeff P. says:

    As a voter in Congressman Barrows district I agree with some, but not all of his politics. This ad has however moved me to call his office and pledge my support against the filthy tactics of the CSGV.

  17. avatarpcrh says:

    No depths to which they will not sink?

  18. avatarBeninMA says:

    But I thought they were cool with revolvers and bolt-actions (?). That’s what they’ve been telling us all these years.

  19. avatarA. B. says:

    “Oh and I wonder how many African Americans would have been lynched had Southern Democrats not denied them their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.”
    Ah, so it’s wrong for the anti-gun people to omit things and use outright lies — but it’s ok for pro-gun people to do it? Those “Southern Democrats” of the racial lynchings period of U.S. History that you mention became the Southern REPUBLICANS of the 1930s(at least)-1990s (and in many cases, of today).
    Ain’t the truth a bitch?
    And just so you know, I’m pro-gun.

  20. avatartacticaldad says:

    I agree the ad is very effective and the editing is superb as a piece of propaganda.

    Two can play at that game however…

  21. avatarG.R. Mead says:

    Lynching was a deep perversion of justice — but it deepens the perversion to misrepresent and pointedly write the truth out of the history of it for present political gain. Lynching was suffered by black people disproportionately, but it was not an exclusively racial — nor indeed an exclusively Southern — problem. The president of the Tuskeegee Institute, F. D. Patterson, reported its findings in a letter placed in the congressional record in 1949, and noted, among other things, the following as to lynchings in that year:

    “Lynchings prevented: In at least 14 instances; lynchings were prevented—4 in the North and 10 in the South. One person escaped from a group of men bent on lynching him by jumping into a river; in the 13 other instances, officers of the law gave protection. A total of at least 17 persons were thus saved from mob violence. Of these, 6 were white persons and 11 were Negroes.”

    In other studies. Tuskegee reported that in the 86 years ending in 1968 there were 1,297 lynchings of white Americans as well as the 3,446 lynchings of black Americans. The largest mass lynching was in New Orleans in 1891, where 11 Italian men were taken from jail and summarily shot and otherwise murdered after being acquitted of killing the police chief. Racism used to be a broader concept than we now conceive of it. Lynchings began in the Revolution, and were done in the South, Midwest, West, even in Minnesota and even New York.

    None of this diminishes the injustice to black people, but the injustice to EVERY person killed without just cause must not be diminished, either. And people who play on moral horrors in ways not even remotely plausible to prevent recurrences — but for their opportunistic political gains in “not wasting a crisis” — are the lowest of the low..

  22. avatarpat says:

    The editing of what he said mean that these libtards are evil. What would you do to stop evil? I hope it (the gun grabbing) goes no farther, as people could get hurt.

  23. avatarRick says:

    I think the congressman should sue them for distorting his words.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.