Guns Save Lives new date (courtesy msnbc.com)

“A coalition of gun-rights groups has changed the date for a celebration of gun ownership to the day after the first anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings,” newstimes.com reports. “Alan Gottlieb, president of the Second Amendment Foundation, said the event will be held on Dec. 15, not the day before, as originally planned. The groups had been criticized for scheduling Guns Save Lives Day on Dec. 14 — the anniversary of the massacre that claimed the lives of 20 first-graders and six educators . . . In moving their event to Dec. 15, Gottlieb challenged those seeking tougher regulation of firearms to ‘drop their plans to further continue their exploitation and politicization of this horrific tragedy.'” Full marks for chutzpah, zero marks for being tone deaf in the first place. [And no points for Alan’s performance on Piers Morgan last night.] We’ve said it before: the SAF should stick to legal challenges.

 

Recommended For You

39 Responses to SAF Shifts “Guns Save Lives” Event to Day After Newtown Anniversary

      • Good choice, sir. I like my 27 a whole lot better once I switched to the extended mags with the pinky groove. You get more capacity as well.

        • Ditto with my 27. A place to put my littlest finger and 2 more rounds to boot.

          I have to be careful, though. A few weeks ago, I drove to CA. Perhaps I was being overly cautious, but I made sure I left the 11-rounders at home, only bringing the 9-rounders that came with it.

      • the 15th is my birthday….while i wouldnt turn my nose up at a G26…..id rather have a shiny colt commander

        its safe to say i didnt party on my birthday last year

  1. “We’ve said it before: the SAF should stick to legal challenges.”

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, don’t ‘should’ on me and I won’t ‘should’ on you. All of our (pro-gunners) voices are important. Efforts to silence those voices are not appreciated, at least by me anyway.

      • Same here, but it’s also the way the message is brought. Well, Piers found someone he could pull into his trap a little bit. Sad, because I like Gottlieb and am a life member of SAF.

    • I agree, but then we must not be surprised when some of those voices make us pro-2d Amendment folks sound incredibly insensitive and thereby make all of us gun-ownership advocates look bad. And, in case you hadn’t noticed, PR is a large part of our battle. Alan Gottlieb’s legal efforts have done much for us, but his performance during his recent Piers Morgan interview was not one of his better moments.

      • The rabid anti-gunners would be pissed if we proposed to snuggle with bunny rabbits on “their” day…

        I’ve got a feeling there are a LOT more people in the middle who don’t care one way or the other, and we need to move our “battles” from the courtroom to the public any way we can.

    • Court victories are impressive, but expensive. SAF needs to maintain a high profile to keep gas in the tank, and media interviews/debates and publicity events are the place to fill up. Now, perhaps the SAF, like the NRA, could use a dedicated front man other than their top dog to do the jousting. Perhaps, but that such activities must take place is par for the course.

    • I’m with Robt on this. Theres leverage in doing what you do best and partnering or at least being careful on what you do poorly. The is strike two on major and avoidable pr fiascos by SAF. Gottlieb seems smart so this could have been a boner by the Board. I donated as a lifetime member BECAUSE of the legal successes particularly hiring Gura. Then came Manchin and another walk back…

      Gene Hoffman: YOU LISTENING….?

  2. Bob Owens over at bearingarms.com has a different take:

    I think he suckered the media… and I’m guilty of falling for it as well, though I should have known better.

    Gottlieb is a very smart guy who has arguably done more for gun rights in this nation that the NRA-ILA, and has done it quietly. I suspect that he chose December 14 knowing it would gin up outrage, simply so that he could poison the well towards any gun control activism on that day.

    That way, when Moms Demand Action and the other over-emotional (and slow-witted) gun control groups attempt to hijack the day, he can claim the moral high-ground and also get the last word in, since “Guns Saves Lives Day” will be held the following day, giving guns rights groups the last word.

    • Exactly what I was thinking. Any group using the day for their political benefit will now be looked at much more cynically and will not get an easy pass. We all know damn well moms demand bullcrap, I mean moms demand action will have used the day for their political agenda. Don’t be surprised if they still do.

      • Sadly, the left will still get a pass for waving the bloody shirt. Perhaps a little less, but still. Still, if there are howls of moral outrage for pro-gun stuff on the 14th, there should be outrage for anti-gun stuff as well. In theory, anyways.

        • Absolutely; but which message will the corrupted anti gun media be championing?

          Alan Gottlieb and friends will likely hardly even be acknowledged, if at all, by the MSM in the media’s efforts to memorialize Newtown. If they are acknowledged, it will most assuredly come with disdain.

    • well…I like Bob Owens writing. So I am considering the theory but have to say it doesnt resonate with me. Most gun folk I know are respectful of someones grief. Just because the MSM takes the low road doesnt mean we need to follow especially when the tide has turned abd waving the bloody shirt is working against the anti’s. Better to focus on removing the anti-gunners from office -proof being Colorado and Dem Gov there telling MAIG to go away. Lots more quiet work behind the scenes building the court cases in order for solid prefedence…again working well lately …proof being Madigan.

  3. Maybe orgs like the NRA, GOA, and SAF that have big memberships, a lot of reach, and legal and political clout, should be taking a more boots-on-the-ground approach to things.

    There have been a lot of people making themselves heard, but from what I’ve seen the overall response has been spread out and diluted. The anti-gun industry is just that: a highly organized industry with very effective PR machinery. But that’s all they have — a few monomaniacal people at the top pushing masses of low-information people who aren’t that dedicated.

    If our side had the organization and PR polish at the top to match the passion that tens of millions of gun owners have for their rights, we could forever shatter the myth that gun rights are only something pushed by the mysterious “gun lobby.”

    Of course there’s the inconvenient fact that gun owners tend to be stubborn, independent, and suspicious creatures…makes it kind of hard to fill the bandwagon.

  4. Success comes from doing what you do best. Branching out like this is well intentioned, but could easily become counter productive if not thought out well, to wit the original plan to hold it on the anniversary of Sandy Hook School tragedy.

  5. Personally, I’m a lot less inclined to cut Gottlieb any slack after he sold us out on the Toomey-Manchin bill. My guess is that contributions to his various gun groups have plummeted recently and he is trying to recover from his epic fail with publicity stunts and TV appearances.

    • That was a massive blunder, but I’m still inclined to forgive. It isn’t easy to combat a massive political machine that leans heavily anti-freedom. Sandy Hook was the watershed event which *proved* that ARs are inherently evil (in the minds of the liberal progressive media). Perhaps Gottlieb thought nationwide carry reciprocity was achievable, or a compromise that would cede less ground than other measures. Regardless, if I wanted perfection in my allies I would be all alone.

    • Indeed. As I hypothesize that Piers Morgan is an NRA double agent, sent out to discredit the antis, I begin to suspect that Gottlieb is a MAIG plant. As a pre-Manchin-Tumor SAF fanboy is pains me to say that.

    • Oh, if only justice were that swift, but CNN knows Morgan will get a ratings boost leading up to and in the days after December 14th so they’ll keep him around a bit longer. Plus he has a bit longer on his 3 year – $8 million contract (who knew being a lying egotistical windbag paid so much?). CNN will probably try to keep him around in a non-prime time slot. Unless MSNBC gives him a better deal, but I don’t see them kicking Maddow, or Matthews to the curb. Hayes or O’Donnell are better candidates for replacement in the ratings, but both have better current ratings than Morgan in every demographic. Unfortunately, I don’t see Morgan “going away” anytime soon.

      • the rumor about his show’s demise is anything but. . . . the only question is what does CNN do with him, but it is well known, he losing his time slot. . . . .

        • Very true. If that didn’t come across in my post, sorry for the confusion. Further, if it weren’t for his increased ratings after SH, he would already have lost his time slot. He knows gun control is his only ratings grabber.

  6. Silly goose, Dec 14th is for waving bloody shirts, not showing how to prevent them. I still don’t understand why anyone would appear on that berk’s show.

  7. I suspect that the SAF realizes that we’re rapidly approaching the limit to how far the courts are going to interpret the 2nd Amendment to invalidate established gun control laws. Since every organization wishes to perpetuate it’s own existence, they’re trying to branch out from the legal realm.

    I’m sure some people won’t like the first part of the above statement, but I suspect it’s true. Banning the blanket prohibition of handguns and forcing Illinois to issue carry permits will probably be as far as it goes. It was an interesting few years for 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, but that party is probably over.

    Post-Heller court decisions have already affirmed the constitutionality of prohibited person statutes. In 2011 an appeals court upheld the constitutionality of the bar on 18-20 year olds purchasing handguns via licensed dealers in Jennings vs. BATFE, and so far there’s no indication the SCOTUS will continue the case.

    I have no expectation that courts will invalidate assault weapon bans, magazine capacity limitations, universal background checks, or any of the other things we worry about. Like it or not, here on out, it’s going to be a political fight. Really, just like it was before Heller.

    • Yes, a good, sober analysis. I expect the recent 7th Cir decision to be upheld, but that’s it. We’ll have to duke it out blow by blow politically. We need to go on the offensive, such as advocating a national law protecting the right to carry (2nd + 14th amendment, although it’s arguable that using the 14th is unnecessary for this purpose). We lose in the long run if we play only defense at the national level, even if we gain in certain states.

  8. Am I the only one who constantly wonders how the body count from Newtown somehow remains at “20 children and 6 educators” to this day? I mean, there *was* another adult killed that day, but she gets excluded because she owned the guns? She is just as much a victim as the rest of the people killed that day.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *