mmdap2

By Cory D.

I often try my best to see all sides to an argument. And I have tried to understand the anti-gun mind set as best as I could, if only to be able to better explain my side to them. In reality anti-gun and pro-gun people are fighting for the same thing; a safer world for our families. The difference, obviously, is that we have two drastically divergent ways of achieving that goal.   As all pro-gunners know, firearms aren’t going anywhere. I don’t mean that in a sense that the certain members of our elected government won’t try their very best to make that happen, but that guns on the streets and guns in the wrong hands will always be prevalent. Only good guys bother to comply with the law. I’m preaching to the choir here, I know. But my hope is that someone on the other side may read this and just maybe it will explain a viewpoint they haven’t heard . . .

If in fact groups like Moms Demand Action’s real intentions are to create a world that is safer for their children, I can respect that. Who wouldn’t? What I don’t respect is their lack of any real effort at attaining that goal. If they want to be taken seriously, they should target their approach toward areas where actual gun violence is prevalent. I would love to see MDA protesting in the streets of Chicago or Baltimore. Or posting photos of criminals using their guns illegally on their Facebook page.

There are plenty of opportunities to do that, but they don’t because they really don’t care about “gun violence” as a whole. They only care about guns within their little box. For the most part the areas they are targeting — coffee houses, grocery stores, chain restaurants — don’t have gun violence problems. The moms just want guns gone from their isolated world. They stay in their safe zones and “demand action” from folks who they know aren’t putting them in any real danger.

Do you really think the MDA mom who tried to present the anti-gun petition at Kroger was worried about her own safety while shopping in that store? If there was an actual concern about open carrying firearms at Kroger and she was really scared, would that protester risk life and limb to take her petition there? What if one of these “crazy gun-toting” open carry folks had been at Kroger that day and saw her pushing that petition in the manager’s face? Of course, she didn’t really feel she was in any danger at all or she wouldn’t have been there.

Would the bare-chested women in Austin have confronted the open carry demonstrators if they really thought those guys were psychotic murderers ready to shoot up the streets? Again, the answer is “no.” In none of these examples did the anti-gun side have any real fear of the folks carrying their firearms, nor should they. If you are honestly afraid to shop in store where someone might be carrying a gun, why would you go to that store, even to demonstrate against it?

The “Take Action” section of MDA’s website explains, “Join the tens of thousands of American moms who are saying ENOUGH to gun violence. Help us fight the epidemic that is killing nearly 8 kids and teens every day.” However, if you go to MDA’s website right now the top three headlines are about Kroger, Panera Bread and Target. How many kids and teens have been shot at any of those chains’ hundreds of retail stores across the country? And if any have, how many of those were killed by people legally able to own and carry those weapons?

The point is that MDA and other similar groups are fighting the wrong battle. They’re protesting against law abiding citizens in safe suburban retail stores while thieves, murderers and rapists laugh at them. Ask a law abiding gun owner what MDA is and he or she will say something like, “Moms Demand Action is an anti-gun group fighting to make it illegal to carry guns.” Ask the same question to a drug dealer, car jacker, or rapist and they’ll get a puzzled look on their face and ask, “Who?” They’re not concerned with MDA and they couldn’t care less what the “moms” say or do. If any of them are actually paying attention, it’s certainly with a grin on their face as they realize that MDA’s only taking the focus off of them.

As much as it pains me to say it, though, MDA aren’t the bad guys. They aren’t my friends, but in the grand scheme of things they too are law abiding citizens who want a safer world for their children. So are we, but we go about it differently and, in my opinion, much more effectively.

What MDA needs to realilze is that we aren’t the bad guys either. We have common goals with different approaches. We are similar in that both gun owners and MDA’s moms are afraid of the real bad guys. The difference is MDA chooses to direct their actions towards people they know are law abiding citizens while the pro-gun side choses to confront our fears in the form of armed self defense. We will defend ourselves and our families and won’t be easy victims. Gun owners, open carriers and concealed carriers recognize that despite government’s best efforts, guns aren’t going anywhere. And we will be responsible for our own protection in a society that will always include dangerous people.

So MDA, I see your side. I get what you are saying. You want a safer environment for your families. We agree and we’ve got your back. We want the same thing. But if your efforts eliminate guns from suburban strip centers is successful, the people who see the “no guns allowed” signs and leave their firearms in their cars aren’t the people you need to worry about. So ultimately, what have you won? It’s those who don’t care about your sign or your petitions — or you life — that you need to worry about. They’re the ones who should concern you and that’s why we are here, to protect all of us from them.

77 Responses to Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America Has it All Wrong

  1. I disagree. They are “bad guys” because their goals facilitate criminals by making it harder for good law-abiding people to protect themselves from criminals. Their intentions may be good (but misguided) but there’s a road that’s paved with lots of good intentions.

    • I concur with John. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and I’m not so sure that the MDA leadership is motivated by good intentions. Even if their goal is to reduce violence, they don’t seem to realize that their actions help create an environment conducive to criminal violence. Our actions go towards making an environment toxic to criminal violence.

      • Again, being wrong does not make you a ‘bad guy’. Ever since I studied Kant I found the saying ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’ remarkably trite and simple minded. The saying applies to MDA but it does not mean good intentions that end in bad results makes you a ‘bad guy’.

        We should be above this ‘good guy/bad guy’ BS and have a little reason, logic, and respect in our social discourse. Not 10 year old temper tantrums about ‘bad guys’ combined with emotional responses ending in a barrage of name calling because someone on the opposite side of the issue says something stupid,they reinforce their illogical positions on the internet, Kroger, Starbucks, etc, or they have a temper tantrum of their own. This is not ‘bad guy vs good guy’ this is about two sides of a singular issue where one side is logically correct and he other is not. Framing it as ‘good guy/bad guy’ is remarkably juvenile and ignorant.

        • I always saw that saying to mean unintended consequences, as in “if you aren’t careful, the road to hell looks the same as the road to heaven.” It presumes that the pilgrim is unaware of his folly and only means good. In fact the author made a point to emphasize that moral…

    • Did you not read the post? Posessing a wrong and irrational position in regards to a certain topic does not make you a ‘bad guy’. It just makes you wrong. Both groups are law abiding one is just motivated by fear and irrationality, it does not make them ‘bad guys’. In regards to criminals, one of our key philosophies is personal responsibilty. Nothing anyone does makes a criminal do what they do. This ‘bad guy/good guy’ B.S. in terms of social and political issues is absolutely ignorant.

      • I agree that simply being wrong doesn’t make you a “bad guy” but that’s a gross misrepresentation of MDA’s actions. MDA as a group has repeatedly lied, twisted facts and misrepresented truths in order to promote their disarmament agenda. They’re doing it again right now, making false claims about admitted murderer Dmitry Smirnov alleging that his actions were only possible due to “loopholes” and “lax gun laws” when in fact his actions were possible because he intentionally broke existing laws.

        • Amen.
          The strategy of the leadership is to emotionally manipulate their membership into irrational beliefs and consequent actions in advancement of the ultimate goal of that manipulative leadership, civilian disarmament.
          The idiocy of the “gun free zone” has been repeatedly proven by its repeated conceptual failure — criminals don’t obey such laws. Still, they persist in advancing that senseless, perverse idea as if “This time it will be different”.

      • There is thing, you dont understand in left agenda.

        If you think MDA-activist at some point would confront their leaders and say “no, obama/hillary/feinstein, FU, i wont kill my fellow americans”, then you are the one who is fooling, and you fooling yourself.

        They stay harmless as long as they are few, and you have gun.

  2. Well said. It’s an irrational, misdirected effort which misses the real problem at the grassroots. Most anti-gunners I have met fall into this category. Outside of a few billionaire, megalomaniacs, the mom’s goal really isn’t to create a fascist police state.

    However, they seem to be led by those that might.

  3. Great article! Honestly one of the better op-ed’s to come from TTAG for a while! The strength lies in framing the argument perfectly to capture both sides of this debate, which the author succeeded in doing.

  4. I think the point of divergence goes back much further.
    It has to do with the nature of human beings.
    The left believes we are all blank slates with no preformed opinions, prejudices or inclinations. (Unless you’re gay and then you can’t help it because it’s how you were born and how dare you oppress them!!!….)
    The fact of the matter is that certain elements of human behavior are I N H E R E N T and cannot be overcome with conditioning, “re-education” (A Clockwork Orange) or legislation. This applies as much to preference in ice cream flavors, general disposition, OCD, ADD, aptitude, sexual orientation, etc, etc…
    The left, statists, progressives and anti-gunners (but I repeat myself) only acknowledges this as a truth in the case of their pet cause, gay rights, but deny it outright in all other contexts.
    I don’t mean to pick on gays and I certainly have no objections to gay people’s rights, but the dichotomy (err…. contradiction? … intellectual dishonesty?…. inconsistency?….. hypocrisy?….) of the left/progressive/statist/anti-gunners’ thinking is very elegantly illustrated by the juxtaposition of their attitudes on gun rights vs gay rights.
    It also illustrates my point: it’s not a difference of views on how to achieve a goal but rather a fundamental difference in how we conceive human nature.

    • Bingo. If you believe that people are inherently good, then you need an explanation for when they do evil deeds (the gun made him do it, his dad was alcoholic, etc.).

      To us here, the idea that evil people would acknowledge a “no guns” sign or a “no guns” law is risible. To the MDA crew, the idea that people wouldn’t welcome such help in moving toward the Millenial Kingdom of “be nice to everyone–it’s the only thing that matters” is baffling.

  5. “If in fact groups like Moms Demand Action’s real intentions are to create a world that is safer for their children…”

    I think we all know that’s not what they’re after…

    • Absofrigginlutely. They may want safety as a side note, but what they really want is for those unlike them (us) to be like them — to have the same values, the same trust, the same weltanschauung.

      One thing I’ve found about gun people is we couldn’t care less if others are like us. (Yes, even the 1911 people.)

    • Absolutely.

      Another example that highlights the control-freak nature of the Left is the National Education Association’s frothing obsession with stomping out homeschooling.

      It’s not about ensuring that kids get a good education, it’s about making sure THEY are the ones to control those young minds.

    • Agree, and I’ll use this line “They only care about guns within their little box”.

      Everyone should confront moms using these data points.

  6. Very succinctly written.

    Cuts right through the baloney, but what are the odds that any of those Moms will see it here, much less
    feel the kinship of our causes?

    One can hope, especially with this missive…

  7. I think your missed a big point. Like the reason people die is that Anti-gun people are gutless wonders. They refuse to stand up with a weapon to protect anyone, including kids! They think taking your gun away, (dis-arming VICTIMS), is the proper response to a world of criminals and foreign nationalist.

    Avoidance is good in their opinion, but stopping the effect of the propaganda might be better. Just like stopping the killers, permanently, might solve both their behavior and our prison cash problems.

    Lets label them what they are! “Pie in the sky crazies.” They keep doing what gets people killed over and over, regardless of the fact that it fails.

    Most anti-gunners want to be thought of as thinking people, but show a remarkable lack of ability in that area!

    • They may act that way because by being “moms” (giving many of them the benefit of the doubt here) they are used to framing complex ideas in oversimplified terms; being the ultimate authority figure for the progeny located in their own cozy little world; and having lesser beings (children) obey them immediately and without question.

      All completely false premises in the adult world.

      • Yeah, it’s as though they can claim extra credibility because of their biology.

        Being a mom (vs. a dad) gives you moral superiority?

  8. “As much as it pains me to say it, though, MDA aren’t the bad guys.”

    GREAT article, but well just have to agree to disagree on this one.

    Those who sacrifice liberty for security…

  9. “The point is that MDA and other similar groups are fighting the wrong battle. They’re protesting against law abiding citizens in safe suburban retail stores while thieves, murderers and rapists laugh at them.”

    Well, sure. It’s a lot safer to protest against law abiding citizens than against criminals. Can you see the Mommies going into the more violent neighborhoods in Chicago and spending a day protesting there? Guess how many of them would be shot by the drive-by gangbangers?

    • I would guess “none”, except maybe by accident. The gangs are into shooting each other, not a bunch of middle-class biddies who have no impact on their lives. Can’t guarantee that they wouldn’t be otherwise ill-treated, tho.

  10. While I see where the author is going…I tend to agree with the sentiment of the responses so far. Don’t be fooled. Bloomberg wants disarmament, he got a good saleswoman and is selling some of these members a bill of goods that is at the very least deceptive just so he can drum up members. While the author’s argument may sway some that are on the fence, those enlisted in the MDA ranks are less likely to listen to reason.

    I’ve said it a few times…the anti’s have a short game and a long game.

    • We’ve been down this path before.

      Bloomberg’s game is long-term; look at the parallels to Prohibition.

      It’s rather remarkable how much the anti-gunners have in common with the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) and the Anti Saloon League (ASL) in the lead up to Prohibition. Note the demonizing of beer by associating it with anti-German sentiment; much akin to associating gun owners with terrorists.

      For more, see PBS site for Ken Burn’s film “Prohibition”
      http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/roots-of-prohibition/

      ——————-

      From Smithsonian.com, rather stunning parallels to Bloomberg’s gun-control ambitions:

      “Wayne B. Wheeler: The Man Who Turned Off the Taps”
      Prohibition couldn’t have happened without Wheeler, who foisted temperance on a thirsty nation 90 years ago

      http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/wayne-b-wheeler-the-man-who-turned-off-the-taps-14783512/?no-ist

      “Wheeler was a small man, 5-foot-6 or 7… who, in the description of the militantly wet Cincinnati Enquirer, “made great men his puppets.” On his slight frame he wore a suit, a waistcoat and, his followers believed, the fate of the Republic.”

      “The ASL’s assiduous attention to Congress had made wet politicians wobble, uncertain politicians sprint for dry shelter and dry politicians flex their biceps. Heading toward the 1916 elections, the league’s political expenditures exceeded the 2010 equivalent of $50 million in a single year.”

  11. Id love to hear/read a Shannon rebuttal. Man, I might even trade an AK47 receiver to her as payment for her response. C’mon guys ante up. She can’t ignore everyone. Dirk? Throw a date in?

    • Shannon Watts and/or her boss, Michael Bloomberg, have an open invitation to write for this page any time they wish. We’d be more than happy to run their piece(s) as is, unedited. We’re not holding our collective breath waiting to receive their articles, though.

  12. Thanks everyone for the comments and taking the time to read the article. I was worried I might get completely trashed for even trying to reason with MDA! It was nice to see that was not the case.

  13. “In reality anti-gun and pro-gun people are fighting for the same thing; a safer world for our families.”

    I disagree emphatically. Gun grabbers want government to have a monopoly of force so they can implement their statist utopia.

    • I disagree. I think both groups are fighting for that. But each group’s goals and methods are vastly different, along with their definition of “safe.”

  14. If in fact groups like Moms Demand Action’s real intentions are to create a world that is safer for their children

    Man, that’s a whole boxcar full of fertilizer. Their bosses of the gun-hate movement (Soros, Bloomberg etc.) have the very real intention of consolidating their oppressive power. Watts, Brady and the rest of the lackeys have the real intention of making money at our expense. Finally, the loons who follow the lackeys belong in an insane asylum.

    I have nothing but contempt for all of them.

  15. I don’t usually click the hyperlinks in articles but when I saw the phrase “the bare chested women in Austin”, I couldn’t help myself. Now I need to wash my eyeballs out with TSP. :\

  16. My problem with MDA leadership is–they lie. And they know they are lying. They know “mass shootings” are rare, and mass “school shootings” are even rarer. They know that open carriers in grocery stores are not shooting anyone. So they concoct different definitions of “mass shooting” and “school shooting” and “dangerous open-carry incidents” to inflate the numbers in a way that they know is unrealistic and misleading. Or, as in the case of the now discredited “40% of gun sales” crap, they just keep repeating it anyway. That tells me that they know they are not proposing things that make anyone appreciably safer, setting completely aside the whole issue of whether having guns in the hands of the law-abiding actually makes things more safe for everyone. And that tells me that safety is not what they are interested in. And that tells me that they are not amenable to be reasoned with on “we both want more safety” grounds. As for the rank-and-file MDA, they are clueless sheeple impervious to fact and logic. Why bother trying to reason with such?

  17. I’ve got to wonder after reading this:

    Ask a law abiding gun owner what MDA is and he or she will say something like, “Moms Demand Action is an anti-gun group fighting to make it illegal to carry guns.” Ask the same question to a drug dealer, car jacker, or rapist and they’ll get a puzzled look on their face and ask, “Who?” They’re not concerned with MDA and they couldn’t care less what the “moms” say or do. If any of them are actually paying attention, it’s certainly with a grin on their face as they realize that MDA’s only taking the focus off of them.

    Just how many of those “moms” would submit to a urinalysis? Maybe took a little snort of “happy dust” before picking up their sign? Or washed down their Xanax with a glass of wine? How many of those have done “only a little business” with that “class of people.” Enquiring minds want to know.

  18. ” The greatest dangers to Liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding”.
    – Justice Louis B. Brandeis

  19. If the group was not funded by Bloomberg I might agree that it is just a group of mothers wanting a safer world for their children, even if their thinking is erroneous. However, the Bloomberg involvement changes the whole thing to something that stinks more than a bunch of dirty diapers!

  20. “What MDA needs to realilze is that we aren’t the bad guys either.”

    Never going to happen for several reasons:
    1. MDA’s belief is now a matter of religion. They can’t accept any challenge to it.
    2. It’s easier to try to bully law abiding than the criminals because the law abiding will be civil
    3. Elements of 1 and 2, to preserve the belief, one needs a devil. It is easy to demonize those who will be civil and take the high road.

    • They won’t even allow pro-gun posts on their FB page, so getting them not to see us as bad guys is quite the stretch.

  21. As much as it pains me to say it, though, MDA aren’t the bad guys.

    100% wrong. MDA are actively fighting to deny the natural rights of law-abiding citizens. Their goal is not to make anyone or anything safer; rather, their goal is complete disarmament of private citizens.

    The only difference between MDA and criminals is that MDA attempts to deny the natural rights of law-abiding citizens via the power of the State, rather than do it themselves.

  22. If you go to the Kroger facebook page, you will find that Kroger has been trying to showcase the cause of breast cancer, and celebrate the survivors. Within those posts you will also find gun-controllers from MDA trying at every turn to turn the whole thing around into a talk about gun-control. It’s pretty sick if you ask me. But it helps explain their mentality.

    • MDA already has this on their FB page, suggesting that this was only possible because Kroger allows guns and if they only put out a statement politely requesting customers not to bring guns to their stores this couldn’t have happened (which of course is nonsense).

      Which goes to show that while some individual members/supporters of MDA might be well intentioned, as an organization they’re just flat out liars and manipulators willing to twist any possible scenario into a claim of support for their disarmament agenda.

  23. Cory,

    I believe you are probably right about the rank and file members. The are simply wrong at worst and fooled at best. Those are the ones that are worth the time to dialog and it’s quite possible to guide emotion in the direction of reason. Did so just yesterday.

    The leadership and funding sources, however, are where I do have to disagree. They are most certainly Bad Guys. They are advocating an ideology that is an enemy of liberty and I believe to be inherently evil. They are to be fought and destroyed – not merely defeated.

    Or to borrow from theology, the first group are our mission field. The second are our enemies.

    • Raul, I agree with you. And I should have done a better job conveying that I was referring to the members not the leaders.

      • Again, the sheeple who swallow–and mindlessly repeat–MDA lies and, more to the point, illogic, are not likely to be persuadable by facts and logic.

  24. I don’t believe for a moment the MDA’s goal is a safer world. If it was, then why do they lie so relentlessly and blatantly? There is a much darker agenda at work – empowering the elites at the cost of freedom. Once the guns are gone from private hands, they can get about running our lives for us. Anyone who has paid attention to nanny Bloomberg can see this.

    • As others have said, it’s not about guns, it’s about CONTROL.

      Bloomberg’s soda control proves the point.

      In his eyes, the little people need a benevolent dictator.

  25. There are also too many examples of MDA supporters openly wishing for violence to befall 2A supporters for me to believe they’re “good.”

  26. Bloomberg is a tyrant in training who is on record as calling gun owners “stupid” and wondering if there are roads in rural Colorado. He is elitist trash who doesn’t trust the American citizen to be able to own the means to defend him or herself. His organization is no different.

  27. I’m going to disagree here in a big way.

    MDA exists simply to ban the law abiding ownership of firearms. Shannon Watts has stated that any firearm that can shoot more than ten rounds a minute should be banned. That encompasses everything from black powder breechloaders to Grandpa’s Marlin 336.

    They do not exist to help make families safer, they exist to ensure that not one of us is able to effectively defend ourselves and therefore we will have to abrogate that responsibility to the State.

    Shannon is a highly paid PR hack. Her entire career has been one paid spin doctor’s position after another. Even her group MDA is nothing more than a Bloomberg created and funded organization from day 1. The woman was on MSNBC as the head of a new gun control organization within a week of making a Facebook page and posting ONE piece of original content. How many times has that happened in history? Her husband managed NYC’s insurance plans, was a Bloomberg confidante, yet she expects us to believe that she suddenly decided to start her organization spontaneously? She lies and she lies constantly about everything. I honestly believe the sole thig she has ever said that was true is “My name is Shannon”.

    As a matter of fact I would take it one step further and say that Shannon, like Joe Biden, is hoping for more deaths and more grieving parents. Not anyone in HER family of course since she has a paid squad of heavily armed goons to shove Dana Loesch around when she asks Shannon a question but rather OUR children.

    She knows violent crime has dropped 50% in the last 40 years and homicides are at a near 100 year low. She knows that violent crime drops precipitously when citizens are allowed to carry the most effective self defense tool ever invented. She KNOWS all of this, yet seeks to reverse those gains because Bloomberg pays her to do so. She also knows that unless she has fresh bodies to point to, Bloomberg’s money stops flowing in.

    It is for this reason I think she is so strident in her efforts to disarm everyone but the heavily armed men that protect her ad her family- it is simply greed. She NEEDS fresh corpses to keep her job and based on her utter lack of anything even approaching ethics, she will do anything to ensure that bodies keep piling up.

    She wants more dead children- not less- so she can maintain her millionaire lifestyle.

    • Kinda sounds sociopathic when you put it that way.

      10 Professions That Attract the Most Sociopaths
      http://mic.com/articles/44423/10-professions-that-attract-the-most-sociopaths

      when it comes to sociopathy, we seem to have a somewhat functioning definition: a lack of empathy, emotions, or ability to identify with others coupled with a superficial charm, persuasiveness, focus, and egomania.

      It might surprise some to learn, however, that the vast majority of sociopaths aren’t killers lurking in the shadows. Most of them are walking around among us, immersed in careers that nurture their psychological traits, and in some cases even reward them.

  28. Anti gunners don’t want a safer world, they want their vision of a safe world. It’s an important distinction. They have a esthetic in their mind and that esthetic doesn’t include us. It’s why they refuse the facts. It’s why their idea of a, “conversation,” doesn’t include our participation.

    They hate us.

    They hate everything we stand for even if it means disagreeing with what they stand for. They hate us so much they will even project their own misdeeds onto us. For example, when they would call us, “bullies,” while they would bully their neighbors and businesses.

    How about that woman in Minnesota that stuck a picture of her gun-carrying neighbor in her yard? She claims she wanted a safe neighborhood, yet decided to pick a fight. That’s not rational. But she knows he’d be docile. He wouldn’t start shooting or throwing punches. If she felt threatened she wouldn’t put his picture in her yard. That’s not an attempt at a safer neighborhood. That was a hostile attack on someone that she decided didn’t conform to her vision.
    She called the police because she wanted to bully him, not because she was frightened of him. She wanted to get her way. When that didn’t work she tried to stir up a mob. None of this behavior is her trying to be safer. She is just trying to make everyone do as she wants. She wants her esthetic. Her vision. Her control.

  29. Dan Zimmerman, that was a very well thought out and reasonable article. I am speaking as a guy who has been banned from MDA’s Facebook page, as well as National Gun Victims Action Council and others (not that it’s hard).

    It is fun to bait the bear by pointing out their factless emoting but ultimately it only further divides. Thanks for making me think about being a bigger man.

Leave a Reply

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