Moms Demand Action Kroger Push Part of Gun Control’s Long Game

Kroger Bank Robber

On freerepublic.com, a discussion about the Moms Demand Action push for a gun ban following an armed robbery of a bank inside of a Kroger store, brought this commonly expressed question from rktman, “Uh, how would this have stopped the robbery again? Please ‘splain that to us.” I will explain it. MDA is playing a very long game. In order to be effective, they have to reduce the number of guns in society by significant amounts. They have to avoid considering any potential benefits gained from gun ownership.  Here is how I believe they think it will work . . .

1.  Bully retail establishments into banning the carry of guns in their stores, as a step toward making guns illegitimate in society, as the combination of trial lawyers, legislators, and the old media have done with cigarettes.

2.  Continue incrementally banning guns wherever possible to make guns more and more socially unacceptable, and legally difficult to own, in order to reduce the number of legal gun owners.

3.  When the number of legal gun owners is reduced sufficiently, ban the legal ownership of guns, except in extremely restricted circumstances. Think Australia and the U.K.

4.  Gradually, through incremental gun confiscation, “buy backs”, increasingly draconian restrictions on ownership and use, perhaps over a couple of generations, reduce the number of guns legitimately owned by 99 percent of the population.

5.   This will probably start to reduce the number of guns used criminally by some amount, however small. As soon as the number of gun owners and/or guns begins to drop, immediately claim credit for any crime reduction, even if the trends started long before your efforts.

6.   Keep up the pressure, and eventually, after several decades, we will have less crimes committed with guns. This is almost sure to happen, because even though crime hasn’t been reduced elsewhere when guns were banned or restricted, we have a much larger number of crimes committed with guns than does the UK, Japan or Australia.

7.  Any increase in crime by other means that may result won’t matter. The goal is to reduce the number of crimes with guns, so only those statistics will be relevant. If overall homicides increase, as long as they aren’t committed with guns it will validate the cause of disarmament. We can then our efforts to banning knives, as they have in the UK.

8.  We can be sure that governments will be beneficent along the way, because no western democracy has been overthrown in the last 75 years. Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico and Ukraine or other examples don’t count, because they were never really western Democracies. Blame their problems on the Second Amendment in the US or on other meddling western democracies.

So you see, if the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex gets its way, sometime in the distant future, the Constitution will have been trashed and the U.S. will be a utopian socialist state like the UK. And we will have reduced armed robberies committed with guns by some amount.

This general program seemed to be working as planned until about 1994. Except, of course, that the crime rate kept increasing, even with ever more restrictions on guns. About 1994 “gun control” peaked, as did the levels of violent crime.  The electorate rebelled against the Clinton “assault weapon” ban at the polls. Second Amendment supporters made serious gains in rolling back gun control laws from 1994 through 2013. And the rate of “gun violence” and overall violent crime was cut in half.

Much as  it may be their goal, I don’t believe the disarmers have sufficient media control to pull off the above program, as illustrated by the failure of the Obama push for universal background checks and a new assault weapons ban. Gun grabbers have been reduced to trying to accomplish their goals via a media push and an injection of “progressive” billionaire money.

A serious challenge exists in the form of tens of millions of dollars that have been thrown into initiative processes such as the Washington state initiative I-594. If the disarmenters fail there after spending 10 times as much as Second Amendment supporters, they may fall back for another 20 years.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

comments

  1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    If they could only see what a dystopian society that would be…

    1. avatar Joe R says:

      If we could only get a look at their actual books.

      Are they receiving any foreign $ to overthrow our Constitution? There’s a name for that.

  2. avatar Scott P says:

    “Second Amendment supporters made serious gains in rolling back gun control laws from 1994 through 2013.”

    On the domestic front perhaps but not when it comes to imports. We now have Obama to thank for the banning of cheap, surplus 7n6 5.45 ammo (never mind it passed the ATF definition of not being an AP round, they still banned it anyway. I know they did it because “Crimea” but all that surplus was coming from Ukraine and Bulgaria our supposed “allies”, not Russia, who we screwed over by doing that. Ironic, huh?), AK rifles from Kalashnikov Concern especially when they were about to release a rifle, the MK-107/8 that IMHO would have given the AR a run for its money, and surplus M1 Garand/M1 Carbine rifles.

    Reagan started this with the “AP ammo ban.”
    The first Bush banned “assault weapons.”
    Then Clinton, the worst offender, went on a smorgasbord of banning that included so-called “assault pistols”, cheap/surplus/steel core 7.62×39 ammo, Chinese rifle/pistols/ammo, Russian pistols and certain “scawy” rifles, and setting the most draconian import standard we deal with today in the late 90’s that banned any semi-auto rifles imported that could hold more than 10 rounds, any muzzle device, bayonet lug, pistol grip, folding stock, etc. as well as furthering the ban list of imports by name that Bush started.
    The second Bush banned barrels.

    And yet not a single president or administration has even remotely thought about removing these restrictions. Even worse there are gun owners who are okay/actively support these (except the M1 Garand/M1 Carbine ban cause ‘Merican made) as long it does not affect their AR-15 and 1911.

    1. avatar Wesley T. Hartman says:

      Given that arms are produced domestically, and that the federal government has the power to regulate what we import and export, these import bends technically aren’t a violation of the 2nd Amendment, or any other constitutional provision that I’m aware of.

      Don’t misunderstand me: I disagree with the import bans just as much, but there isn’t much we could do about it from a constitutional perspective. We certainly could have an argument for it being arbitrary, however, given domestically produced AKs function exactly the same, so limiting the import is silly and cannot accomplish anything.

      1. avatar Scott P says:

        They may function but not as well as imports. I could give you tons of examples of assemblers here taking advantage of this ranging from using cheap if not dangerous out-of-spec parts to outright fraud. Even though some get caught a lot still get away with it because there is no standard AK made here that can compare to the imports quality-wise without them costing well above $1,000. At that price point people are not willing to pay that much for an AK unless they are a collector or have to have a certain model of one.

        I know it sounds shallow and pedantic but it is something that I and many others are passionate about how our voice is muffled in the fight to restore our rights. If it comes down to it I would argue that imports (especially those of the former Eastern bloc variety) allow people with not a lot of money to get into shooting on a budget with a milspec, quality firearm that will be durable/reliable considering a lot of things domestically made at the lower end of the spectrum are not that good of quality. That is how I got into shooting as a poor college student years ago. I did not have the money to buy the fancy stuff or means to feed it on a constant basis coupled with the fact I did not trust domestic brands around the same price point quality or durability wise. The constant banning will increasingly make shooting a rich man’s pastime considering the cost of labor and taxes here on guns and ammo. What will be next? Where does it stop?

        One example is Remington and the rest of the Freedom Group with their poor domestic QC control of their brands. They generally go for the more frugal consumers who do not have a lot to spend.

        Another example is the shortage still of .22 ammo (I myself am not into .22 shooting but others are).

        I see the regulation of commerce clause in the Constitution but our rights like the 2nd Amendment trump those. Do we ban books, speech and other materials covered under the 1st Amendment from our shores? What makes guns any different especially under lawful commercial interactions?

        1. avatar Wesley T. Hartman says:

          I own 8 imports, because I am also not a wealthy man. I’m not arguing that banning imports is right, but it’s technically not unconstitutional. Do they ban speech materials? No. Could they? Constitutionally, yes. Arguing the cost of domestic vs. foreign is a moot point because that is a function of the market. If the market demands less expensive quality goods, the market will get it. The problem with that is that people will blindly buy “Made in America”, even if the quality is poor or the price is exhorbant. Or both, in the case of Remington. How many folks are buying American made AKs because hurr durr made in ‘Merica!? Too many people, truth be told.

          Like I said, I’m not disagreeing with the fact that it’s wrong to ban imports. Just that it’s technically not unconstitutional.

  3. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    so if they lose, does this mean Shannon really becomes a stay at home mom?

    1. avatar William says:

      No Shannon is still a working girl…

    2. avatar Taylor TX says:

      Ha only in your dreams 🙂 Shell just move on to the new cause du jour of whoever wants to pay her to continue shilling.

      1. avatar ShaunL. says:

        She could always go back to Monsanto.

        1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

          that would be very convenient. . . .

        2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          …and sell Agent Orange.

  4. avatar ADC USN/Ret says:

    Ya see, if they are the ones that criminals target, Darwinism awards will make their survival questionable.

    Another question I have is, if people know that arms are present in certain households. Wont criminals target the homes, where they are sure of a safe working environment? In other words wont these voting idiots target themselves?

  5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    And that long game breaks down miserably, when one considers reality:

    1. 300 million firearms currently present in the country, with thousands (?) more manufactured daily
    2. Even if production were halted tomorrow, those 300 million existing firearms are going to take generations to neutralize through confiscation, attrition, etc.
    3. As more law-abiding citizens are disarmed, more armed criminals will become more emboldened, and will commit more crime
    4. Which will be exacerbated by the likelihood that formerly legal firearms will inevitably end up in the hands of criminals, rather than being neutralized

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      Long term or short…what possesses any group to decide your ability to lawfully self protect is void?

      This nonsense ends when confiscators are out manned and out gunned, out thought, and out maneuvered

    2. avatar John Galt says:

      Having lived in an Authoritarian Liberal State, reason and logic don’t apply.

      I can speak from experience, the Statists will never give up!

      This is essentially an eternal struggle.

      They have a long game, for sure.

  6. avatar C.S. says:

    It will never work. 5000 miles of loose border and 1000 people illegally crossing the U.S. on a daily basis will ensure that criminals will always have access to guns. The gun free utopia is a crackpot fantasy.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      You mean from gun-free Mexico? Impossible!

      1. avatar ShaunL. says:

        If the criminals here run out of guns they can always call Leland Yee.

        1. avatar Wesley T. Hartman says:

          I don’t know man, I think the Feds are on to him… might wanna try Holder instead…

  7. avatar John L. says:

    It strikes me that what MDA should do is try to bully gun stores to ban guns. That would cut out the middleman, so to speak. Wouldn’t that make sense?

    Of course, the chances of that happening are roughly the same as animal-rights activists throwing dye on people in a biker bar, rather than those coming out of a society event. (Well, more than once, anyway…)

  8. avatar SleeStac says:

    Dean,

    I think you are giving them way too much credit. I doubt they have thought out a strategic vision that far in the future. I suspect their approach is more like: fail in the legislative sphere with the backing of the president. Fail in influencing canidates and elections. Succeed in getting guns banned in large, well known, retail businesses.

    Now we know they didn’t succeed in getting guns banned in Starbucks etc. But every time I read an article about the Moms in the press, that is what the article authors write. That is what the Moms claim to have succeeded in. Their social media bullying approach lends itself well to going after those kinds of victories.

    If Kroeger continues to resist their pressure and doesn’t suffer financially for it, it will be interesting to see if that doesn’t embolden other Moms targets. I hope so. Maybe Bloomberg will get himself a different dog and pony show to wave the bloody shirt. I think Shannon and her moms are trying to keep their jobs and going after large retail stores have been the only thing they can successfully do.

    1. avatar John Galt says:

      @SleeStac

      I’ve got to respectfully disagree with you.

      Having been born, raised and indoctrinated (by the media and culture) in a Authoritarian Liberal City in an Authoritarian Liberal State, I can assure you that Dean’s analysis is 100% spot on. If anything, I’d argue that he doesn’t go far enough in exposing their long-term multifaceted strategy.

      Let’s not forget all the kids who are being made examples of in order to advance the Statist agenda of absolute control:

      * Pop-Tarts shaped like Idaho
      * Finger gun gestures
      * Paper cut into the shape of the uppercase letter “L”
      * LEGO guns for Minifigures
      * Deaf child’s sign language name “Hunter”
      * Pencils with accompanying “phew, phew” sound
      * T-shirts with image of firearm
      * T-shirts with words about the 2nd Amendment
      * Hello Kitty toy that blows bubbles
      * Saying the word “gun” on a school bus
      * Picture of a lead ball for show-and-tell
      * Empty brass 9/11 souvenir

      Though we didn’t have any real firearms in the house, when I was a little kid we played “cops and robbers” with toy guns in our front yard.

      Nobody thought twice about it, let alone call the police. And a child would not have been suspended due to any of the above “gun-related” offenses.

      However, as I grew older (middle and high school), I became more fearful of guns due to the news-media hype about guns, gun control, “Saturday Night Specials,” portrayal of guns on TV and movies, etc.

      Without a contrasting viewpoint, that had a long-lasting influence on my outlook on guns. Only after moving to a Free State did I learn how much propaganda and mythology had been foist upon me.

      The Statists are in this battle to win.

      They will use whatever Machiavellian means necessary to achieve their goal.

      Remember too, it’s not about guns, it’s about CONTROL.

      1. avatar SleeStac says:

        Fair enough John, but most of the worst abuses though that you mention are the work of brainless bureaucrats, not a centralized, coherent movement. I think Ms. Watts and her ilk are in this as an easy way to pick up money and play on a national stage. I think that the day Bloomberg’s cash disappears, w ill be the last day we hear anything from Watts and her Moms. I suspect that there are a few people whose hearts are really in the whole gun control thing, but that the vast majority of them really are low information, lukewarm supporters at best. The enthusiasm gap between pro 2A and antis couldn’t be any larger.

        I think we would be foolish to under estimate their impact in the main stream, but I also think we need to recognize that the gun control crowd aren’t really part of a movement. They seem to me to be a bunch of independent actors trying to use this issue to further their own careers. They do not have an ideology or group guiding their actions. They are, in a word, brainless. Thank God!

  9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Remember, gun grabbers only have hysteria on their side. That hysteria only plays for so long before people begin to see through it. We have facts, reason, logic, and real world actions on our side. Our best bet is to keep pushing the facts, reason, logic, and real world actions to everyone — especially our children! Oh, and take ALL of your family, friends, and neighbors to a range!

  10. avatar JasonM says:

    A serious challenge exists in the form of tens of millions of dollars that have been thrown into initiative processes such as the Washington state initiative I-594. If the disarmenters fail there after spending 10 times as much as Second Amendment supporters, they may fall back for another 20 years.

    But if they succeed, then it’s on to the next state. Which is why we need the rest of you to help as much as possible. It’s too late for you to move here and vote against 594, but you can donate money to the anti-594 groups, and pro-591 groups.

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      And 594 is very likely to succeed. The problem with initiatives is most people read the description on the ballot, and if it sounds good, then they vote yes. If they give it ten seconds thought, they’re really pondering it.

  11. avatar Southern Cross says:

    When the anti-gunner’s utopian dream turns into a dystopian nightmare, their reaction won’t be “what did we do wrong” because their cognitive dissonance will block out any negative thoughts to their actions. Their response will be “we didn’t go far enough” and will result in an increasingly draconian backlash. This backlash has the potential of reaching the point where the sheeple and other unbelievers are eventually herded into the showers for delousing.

    Just watch the strange alliances the anti-gun groups make and the extreme positions they hold. In particular the extreme green agendas.

    1. avatar John Galt says:

      ^^ This.

  12. avatar Roscoe says:

    I wish I could share some of your ‘all’s optimism.

    Here in CA living amongst so many hoplophobic idiotic fantasizing utopian progressive dreamers and seeing the Democrats in Sacramento systematically assault our “arms” freedoms is maddening and depressing. Things don’t look promising; Extremist LA Democrat Ghost Gun Deleon just got sworn in as the 47th President pro Tempore of the California State Senate, at a Disney Concert Hall no less – Fantasia anyone?

    That doesn’t bode well for gun owners in this state, other than he’s an idiot, but an idiot with lots of sympathetic Democrat supporters both in and out of government.

    People out there in still free America, this crap is spreading everywhere with political activists challenging and abridging constitutional protections where ever they land. Houston comes to mind, and as the cost of living, work opportunities and other reasons for leaving CA results in these CA progressive morons moving to your state, this cancer can only spread.

    BTW, how is Houston these days?

    1. avatar John Galt says:

      I also don’t share the optimism that MDA, Brady Campaign, etc. will wither away.

      They might retreat into the shadows to regroup.

      But never doubt that they WILL return with a vengeance at the first opportune “crisis” with legislation in hand, ready to do what they’ve already done in Connecticut, New York, California, Colorado, etc.

      The Statists are like a virus, consuming their host, then moving on to the next victim.

      Don’t for a moment think the virus can be forever contained to the gun-prohibitionist states.

      While not optimistic, I’m neither pessimistic.

      With eternal vigilance on our part, we can advance Liberty.

      ———-

      Among other things, that vigilance looks

      * inviting as many newbies to the range as possible
      * joining gun-rights groups
      * registering to vote
      * VOTING!!!!
      * being a 2nd Amendment ambassador
      * getting your hunter friends on board with the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment
      * letters to the editor
      * starting a 4-H shooting club
      * insert your idea here ___________

    2. avatar John Galt says:

      Having migrated from a Authoritarian State to a Free State, I can assure you that they are like a virus.

      Statists will blithely destroy their host and then move on to the next victim, completely unaware of the wake of destruction they leave in their path.

      Even now, the Free State to which I moved is under invasion by northern liberals.

      They’ve destroyed the northeast and now seek greener pastures.

  13. avatar johnb says:

    And if we ban swimming pools, we’ll have fewer drownings in them….

    Rates of violent crime and rape in disarmed (yet civilized) countries provide plenty of evidence that we shouldn’t look to emulate them.

  14. avatar mirgc says:

    Without debating some of the finer points of the authors article, I do agree: It’s about culture, and not the guns or crime prevention, that MDA is trying to change.
    1) Make gun-ownership undesirable to the general public (oh, your one of THOSE type of people)
    2) Divide us :open carry vs concealed vs neither.
    3) Keep relevant by claiming victory for waking up each day.
    4) Try to shame gun-owners until they won’t speak up (your all alone in your beliefs….)

    1. avatar John Galt says:

      ^^This!

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Try and enlist the help of the Fudds and RINOs. The New York State Senate is a good example of this.

  15. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    The gun control Bolshevik Statists need a monopoly on the media. The internet has broken state sponsored media and now alternative media exists. The internet has benefited gun owners more than the central planning Astro-turf Soviet Socialists. I sort of think in the long run that more varied digital communications will make it harder for dictatorial governments to stay in control.

    1. avatar John Galt says:

      They also need to control schools, which is why the National Education Association so virulently opposes homeschooling, voucher systems, charter schools, etc.

      “WE will decide what thoughts will fill your child’s mind!”

  16. avatar tdiinva says:

    If that’s there long game then it’s going to be a real long time. MDA has had zero success in getting firearms banned from any place. The sum total of their success has been a bunch of retailers and restaurants to say “pretty please keeps your guns at home.” Wink, nod. I can walk into any Starbucks, Target or Chipoltle in Larimer County or similar part of the country packing a big @$$ 1911 without anyone so much as giving me a second look. Of course we should be alert to the gun grabbers but we should also laugh at them whenever we get the opportunity.

  17. avatar Peter says:

    Best comment @ Mom’s Demand Some Action page @ this pic is from “Ball Ball”:

    “Why not just put up a sign saying “No Armed Robbery Allowed!”

    We could also make armed robbery illegal. It’s crazy it isn’t yet.

    Is this organization run from inside an insane asylum? You people need help”

    Give the man a cigar and an applause 🙂

  18. avatar N8thecowboy says:

    The robber was probably Shannon.

  19. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “…sometime in the distant future, the Constitution will have been trashed…”

    Distant future? Haven’t you been paying attention to the last three or four decades, Dean? The majority of the Constitution’s provisions (specifically in the area of limits on government power) have been undermined and disregarded quite thoroughly already.

    1. Several books have already been written on the topic. Call it cultural shorthand.

  20. avatar MarkPA says:

    I think you have the “long-game” just about right. There is an article somewhere on the internet about how the Brits took about 90 years (3 generations) wringing out civilian use of arms. Likely, US Anti’s are trying to replicate this process. And, it’s primarily one of changing the culture rather than primarily through changing the laws. If only they could get a solid majority of the voters to have queasy feelings about guns then they could really clamp-down on the laws.
    What we have to do is to continue to advance the Pro-gun agenda so that their goal continues to recede in spite of their efforts. None of our rights will be respected by our legislators UNLESS a majority of voters continue to hold that each such right is to be respected. Loose that majority and the legislators (to say nothing of SCOTUS) will do whatever they like.
    I think we need to penetrate the Won’t-Issue States via National Reciprocity to inoculate the voters in these States to the presence of CC guns in their communities.

    1. We are very close to doing this. We should have done it when Dubya was President, as an anti-terror measure.

      Rove and the RINOs were too terrified of the old media to do it.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email