Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America’s Artsy Anti-Gun Agit-Prop [VIDEO]

Define “developed country.” Do the stats on teens “killed by guns” include teenage gang bangers doing what gang bangers do? (Hint: yes.) Where’s the evidence that “safe gun storage” laws reduce gun deaths? How do “gun sense policies” (i.e. private property owners banning legally carried guns on their premises) stop armed criminals and make people safe? How do background checks keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people? You know the MDA drill: misleading stats and unproven generalizations wrapped-up in motherhood and apple pie. “We can and will put an end to gun violence in America” the narrator promises. Translation: look at this baby! Still, I’m glad Everytown is pissing away tens of thousands of dollars creating artsy-fartsy videos for hundreds of sycophants.

comments

  1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Is it me or are they pouring it on lately?
    moms demanding attention. Ugh.

    1. avatar younggun21 says:

      They are. What I want someone to answer for me (on their side of the isle): Why is it that whenever there is a group asking for a conversation on guns, they always disable the comment section of their “evidence”? Logic would dictate that if a true conversation was really desired, open forums would be welcomed instead of censored.

    2. avatar DrVino says:

      They will be going full throttle during the run up to the election.

      1. avatar dh34 says:

        It is a conscious effort to impact the primaries. The left is trying to out left each other in the primary and this is trying to rally single issue (anti) voters and supposed “mom vote” out In support of HRC.

        What they don’t realize is that HRC is going to have to tack back to center during the general and lay off the gun rhetoric or risk losing some voters in swing states that may be heavy union but are also hunter friendly.

    3. avatar foo dog says:

      Yep, doubling down, as they have no where else to go.

      I predicted this, a year ago, here.

      We aint seen nuthin’ yet. The One is working on his next job, at the UN. Remember the UN Arms Treaty?
      Get ready…more Executive Action to come…

    4. avatar Jose says:

      What I want to know is why the cartoon of the Asian gun lobbyist is so stereotypical? it looks like a bad political cartoon of the Japanese in the 40s, just terrible

      1. avatar Mark says:

        I was wondering that too. If that were a conservative group, there would be protesters bused in to picket their headquarters (paid a fee for doing so…….you know…..grassroots style).

    5. avatar Dry Sider says:

      In under 80 seconds they lies twice.

      Shannon Watt “stay at home mom”
      “largest grass roots” gun control group

      No mention of her time as a PR flak for Monsanto.

      So many lies.

      “We worked to pass an initiative in WA state for UBC.” HA! Unless Bloomberg is called “we,” that’s also a lie.

  2. avatar Philboyd Studge says:

    This level of delusion is frightening.

    1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

      Look up the clinical symptoms of a person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

      Then compare these symptoms to the actions of these “Demanding Moms.”

    2. avatar Lost Down South says:

      Pro 2A folks discuss, follow the law, educate others, work with legislators, etc.

      The “Moms?”

      Tongue depressor puppet shows and cartoons.

  3. avatar Another Robert says:

    I give up–what’s the point?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Uhmmm…

      Guns, I *think*…

  4. avatar Skykingmn says:

    The tune is catchy though.

  5. avatar Rick in NH says:

    Is it my imagination, or does the “gun rights” advocate on the right of the three advocates look like a Japanese caricature from a WWII propaganda cartoon?

    1. avatar Jose says:

      LOL I literally just wrote that before scrolling down the thread. hahah good spot dude thats the first thing i saw too

  6. avatar Roymond says:

    I did an estimate once and decided that safe and secure storage of guns not in use would reduce the annual U.S. fatality-by-gun by on the order of 0.02%.

    Hardly a dent. The big result would be the few people whose guns didn’t get walked off with wouldn’t have to worry about their slackness resulting in a criminal using their gun to kill someone.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      You, and they, should not fall into the trap of blaming the gun. Regardless of the origin of the gun used in a crime, whether from an unsecured location during a burglary or anywhere else, it is the criminal who commits the crime and if he didn’t have that gun from the burglary he would find one somewhere else and STILL do the crime.

      I have had guns stolen, both times from locations I assumed were reasonably secure. I was the victim of a crime. A criminal (obviously) took my guns. I am no more responsible for what he does with those guns from that point forward than if he had stolen my car to use as a getaway vehicle and crashed into innocents while running from the police.

  7. avatar TX Gun Gal says:

    Could not get though the whole 5 minutes of that condescending sugar voice, stopped after a minute to save brain cells

    1. avatar Troutbum5 says:

      You lasted longer than I did.

    2. avatar Removed_californian says:

      Made it 2:30. Gave up. Regret wasting 2:30 minutes that I can’t get back.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        I only made it long enough to click “dislike”.

  8. avatar Roymond says:

    The lies, they hurt.

    They claim eighty a day killed by guns. That’s about one every eighteen minutes. At the same time, the recent CDC figures show that a defensive gun use occurs between one and eleven times a MINUTE (if I did my arithmetic right).

    Besides which, it isn’t the whole nation: a recent cultural analysis shows that there are effectively eleven nations in the U.S. (which also extend into northern Mexico and most of Canada) — and if you take away just two of those nations, the annual figure for the rest beats those in Europe. From another perspective, if you take away the two dozen most violent counties in the U.S., what’s left also beats Europe’s figures.

    But I’ve never seen an analysis by antis that asks what’s different about those two “nations” or those two dozen counties — they just want to force everyone into one-size-fits-all-badly rules that let them feel good about “doing something”. I’d like to see Congress authorize a joint study by the top ten firearms+crime researchers in the country to look at those critical areas and address why they are so critically different.

    1. avatar MattG says:

      I’ve crunched numbers for the state of Michigan using FBI and Census information to conclude that 12.34% of the population commits 76.04% of Murders in .56% (yes – point five six) of the state’s land mass. Murder rate for the top 10 dealiest cities is 31.4 per 100k while the remainder of the state works out to 1.38 per 100k. Would be interested in see numbers for other states when I get a chance to crunch them.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        You’ll very likely find a similar Pareto Principle pattern in other states, too.

    2. avatar Bob says:

      I’ve never seen an analysis by ‘pro’s’ addressing the societal differences either.

      After several years as a gun owner, and a strong supporter of gun rights (reading TTAG daily and a few other guns sites, and responding to anti-gun posts whenever I encounter one on FaceBook), I have come to realize that the anti-gun side of this issue is completely wrong, but the pro-gun side is slightly wrong.

      Both sides seem to concentrate on “more guns” or “less guns”, when the number of guns in a country/state/ county/city/neighborhood does NOT correlate with the number of murders or amount of violence in that region. More guns do not result in more or less violent crime, and the same is true for regions with fewer guns. It is possible to make a strong correlation (positive or negative) between gun ownership and violent crime when looking at SOME of the data, but when one looks at ALL the data that correlation falls apart.

      There are several OTHER factors that do strongly correlate with the violent crime rate, but the gun ownership rate is not one of those factors. These other factors are certain characteristics of communities that seem to lead to increased violence in those communities. These include (but are not limited to) poverty, low levels of employment, low respect for the police and government, etc. Look at a gang-infested neighborhood in an inner-city, list the characteristics of that community, and you will have most of the characteristics/factors that lead to high levels of violence. Look at other high-violence countries or cities in any other part of the world, and you will see most of the same characteristics there.

      So why aren’t we looking at and analyzing those other factors? Could it be that both sides of the issue – pro-gun and anti-gun – are more interested in their agenda, than in actually reducing the amount of violent crime? Or have the anti-gun advocates pushed the pro-gun side into a position where all the pro-gun side can do right now is defend themselves against the anti-gun attacks?

      We need to find some way to bring both sides to the table with STRICT ground rules, and start a discussion about those other factors, because addressing those other factors is the only way we can actually make a difference against violent crime.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        You’re right: fixing crime is not really central to either side’s agenda. The antis just want everyone except the government disarmed, period. As for the pro-gun side, less crime is great, but a separate issue from gun rights. Solve that if you want, but first and foremost, leave my rights alone.

        On the pro-gun side, there’s no trust of the antis, and there really shouldn’t be. They repeatedly spout the same lies over and over, and when they let their true intentions slip, they reveal their desires are completely incompatible with anything that we could conceivably ever accept. So there’s no possibility of working together on anything, even something that everyone should agree on, like reducing crime.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          The only anti-crime effort of the past twenty years proven to reduce the incidence of violent crime is……the growth of concealed carry. Firearms freedom and crime reduction are more enmeshed than you know.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        You are probably right that “more guns = less crime” is not precisely correct. There are an estimated 320 million guns in private hands in America, but there are only 12 million people with concealed carry permission slips, some percentage of whom do not actually carry their weapon at all times.

        The thing that would work is: “More law-abiding citizens carrying guns = less crime.”

      3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Both sides seem to concentrate on “more guns” or “less guns”, when the number of guns in a country/state/ county/city/neighborhood does NOT correlate with the number of murders or amount of violence in that region. More guns do not result in more or less violent crime, and the same is true for regions with fewer guns. It is possible to make a strong correlation (positive or negative) between gun ownership and violent crime when looking at SOME of the data, but when one looks at ALL the data that correlation falls apart.

        John Lott has published ample data. I have seen no credible refutation of his analysis, which concludes that more guns in the hands of the law-abiding leads to less crime. You’re welcome to cite a rebuttal.

        There are several OTHER factors that do strongly correlate with the violent crime rate, but the gun ownership rate is not one of those factors. These other factors are certain characteristics of communities that seem to lead to increased violence in those communities. These include (but are not limited to) poverty, low levels of employment, low respect for the police and government, etc.

        So, where is all the crime in the extremely impoverished, rural areas of the country, that exhibit all of those factors?

        Look at a gang-infested neighborhood in an inner-city, list the characteristics of that community, and you will have most of the characteristics/factors that lead to high levels of violence. Look at other high-violence countries or cities in any other part of the world, and you will see most of the same characteristics there.

        The primary characteristic that correlates to the high rate of violent crime in such areas is the infestation of violent criminals.

        So why aren’t we looking at and analyzing those other factors?

        Because, as gun-rights advocates, we understand that those factors have absolutely nothing to do with the right of the law-abiding to keep and bear arms. It is the anti-gun-rights advocates that conflate violent crime with the prevalence of firearms possessed by the law-abiding.

        Could it be that both sides of the issue – pro-gun and anti-gun – are more interested in their agenda, than in actually reducing the amount of violent crime?

        The exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law-abiding does not lead to more violent crime. Disarming the law-abiding only serves to make them more likely to be victimized by violent criminals. Until this point is settled, and the gun-control crowd quits trying to disarm the law-abiding, it is imperative that we fight to ensure that the law-abiding maintain their right to keep and bear arms.

        In short: the antis are bringing the fight to us. We must win that fight, in order to have any hope of even being able to begin to address the problem of violent criminals.

        Or have the anti-gun advocates pushed the pro-gun side into a position where all the pro-gun side can do right now is defend themselves against the anti-gun attacks?

        In short: yes.The anti-gun advocates are choosing to fight us, instead of dealing with violent criminals. We didn’t pick the battle; even so, we must win it.

        We need to find some way to bring both sides to the table with STRICT ground rules, and start a discussion about those other factors, because addressing those other factors is the only way we can actually make a difference against violent crime.

        The strict ground rules are …the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        Once the anti-gun advocates accept those ground rules, then we could work together to deal with violent criminals.

        Except: the anti-gun advocates have no desire to deal with violent criminals. Their only goal is civilian disarmament.

        1. avatar Mr. AR-10 says:

          This said it better than I was trying to. Key: “Except: the anti-gun advocates have no desire to deal with violent criminals. Their only goal is civilian disarmament.”

          They are using violent crime as a vehicle to push their agenda only – they don’t care one iota for crime victims, and that includes those both with and without mothers. Just like the statist really doesn’t care wether or not the globe is really warming, for your transgender feelings, or whether or not your black lives matter or any of that crap. All they care about is power, and individual citizens owning guns is a threat to that power.

          This of course is why they focus so much on semi-auto rifles, in particular those with “military characteristics” – these guns are responsible for nearly zero crimes, violent or otherwise, yet these guns are the target of the anti 2a crowd above all else. Why is this? Because these are the guns they worry about being used against them. Very simple.

          “We need to find some way to bring both sides to the table…”

          Who told you that? We need do no such thing. I think they can, frankly, blow me.

  9. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    think it would be in poor taste if I showed up in Zion, IN for Turkey Trim, I mean trimmings?

  10. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    Again, just because you are a mom doesn’t mean you know shit about anything in life. This video proves they don’t know shit.

  11. avatar DrVino says:

    A stay-stay-at-home mom?
    Nice…..
    No past PR experience you say?

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      “… never imagined it would grow to become the largest grass-roots organization working to reduce gun violence in the country, but it happened! Because of people like you!” (And Mikey Bloomberg’s billions. And the fact that it doesn’t cost anything to join. And that “joining” means clicking a link on Facebook. Or tweeting something. Less effort than ordering a romance novel on your Kindle.)

  12. avatar An English Person says:

    Message to ‘the good shepherd’: we are not your sheep.

  13. avatar Alex says:

    Does anyone remember that video of a british anti-knife group? It was like a 60 minutes interview/behind the scenes thing, they held a knife dropoff, then took them all to a dump and smelted them?

  14. avatar foo dog says:

    And there is a side purpose, to raise the faux noise level, to perhaps influence clerks and Justices.

    Friedman v Highland Park, now on its fourth relist and Commonwealth v Caetano v are both awaiting Cert at SCOTUS, the latter at conference Nov 13, which means we *might* get an answer as early as the following Monday, the 16th.

  15. avatar Phil LA says:

    I get that this is “art.” But it seems that they got a little carried away with the artists rendition of the crowds at these protests. By my observation, the true number of demonstrators averages below 10: not 10,000.

    1. avatar Mr. AR-10 says:

      Not art, it’s propaganda. And it’s pretty slick too, must have cost quite a bit.

  16. avatar Bull says:

    Moms Demand Action
    For Nonsense in America

  17. avatar Mr. AR-10 says:

    ” Could it be that both sides of the issue – pro-gun and anti-gun – are more interested in their agenda, than in actually reducing the amount of violent crime?”

    This is very correct. I stand for the constitution and the 2a. Why do I care what the crime rate is for downtown Philadelphia? I don’t go there. Now, of course I would like to see a reduction in crime there, and everywhere, but this is not why I support the 2a. I support the 2a because because I support liberty, individual rights and the constitution. Period.

    “We need to find some way to bring both sides to the table with STRICT ground rules”

    No, we don’t. First of all, they are not interested in any sort of discussion.

    “because addressing those other factors is the only way we can actually make a difference against violent crime”

    What makes you think MDA is interested in reducing crime rates?

    Their goal is to disarm the US, that is all. And they are not honest actors, the will participate in no discussion, in fact they won’t do anything that they do not already know will benefit their cause, and honest discussion does not do so. They will never participate in any such thing. Go ahead and try to get them involved in a discussion, in fact make it a video and put on youtube, I’m sure it would be eye opening.

    1. avatar Mr. AR-10 says:

      Sorry, post mean to respond to “Bob says:
      November 9, 2015 at 22:28”

  18. avatar bob in IN says:

    Moms Disarming Abused.

  19. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    MiniTrue remains hard at work, I see.

    This is like the calm between Two Minute Hates.

  20. avatar Louis Marschalko says:

    Maybe we need a “Target The Toddler” video game! Laughing at these people is the best defense. Think of how the left responded to the Kentucky court clerk, Kim Davis, who wouldn’t issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. They treated her as a joke. Same here. “TTT”, for “Target The Tots” could become an Internet meme.
    It’s kinda like an Internet version of “open carry”. It’s “in your face” outrageous. I’m not saying that open carry is “in your face” outrageous, but on the Internet we can and must go further because we are in a virtual, not a physical, setting.

  21. avatar DaveR says:

    Let’s acknowledge that this video is well produced and has the potential to recruit people over to their side. People who might not have a formed opinion on this might get swayed. What are we offering those uncommitted people in return?

    1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      The truth.

      Actual, and supportable, facts.

      The sheer joy of poking holes in paper targets at the range. (or cans and bottles in the back 40)

    2. avatar Mr. AR-10 says:

      I think I take your point as no, we have nothing like this slick, deceptive propaganda that is itself also pushed by traditional media, the Democrat party, unions, corporations everywhere, churches, you name it.

      Yes we have the NRA and various local and national organizations that do offer alternatives, and honest ones at that. But we do not have anything like the well funded political policy organizing efforts we are seeing directed that push destruction of individual gun rights.

      Pretty much all we have is the 2a; it’s an uphill battle that is certain.

  22. avatar Powers says:

    Funny, they have 878 subscribers. They are the largest “organization” grass roots whatever? Ok.

  23. avatar Powers says:

    Also, I have always noticed that it is not guns obviously that they don’t like, but the demographic they think it represents..Us. We believe in freedom, less government, etc..and they hate that. They think we are racist, which is just them applying their own faults to others..”Well, I think blacks are dangerous, so I feel guilty..I’ll fight racism by pointing out my own racist feelings and accusing others of my own faults.”..that kind of mentality. Also the “I am too angry to carry a gun, so I will apply my desperate faults to others who are not out of control”..etc.

    It is simply us they don’t like, and they know we believe in this. Like religion, freedom of financial choices, school choices..no, can’t have that, we have a system, and individualism and self reliance..not part of the plan..conform.

    They just hate everything about us.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      It is extremely common for mothers to blame their faults on their children in order to protect their own pyche as a good mother and person. One very common method of emotional pain avoidance is to focus on someone else and their pain and to help them in order to ignore their own emotional pain. They can then feel good for a little while about what they did and feel false empathetic healing when someone else actually experiences some kind of healing. A group centered around tragedies of this type is like crack to those engaging in emotional denial and transferrance. By continually ignoring their own faults and emotional damage they can never heal and the longer it continues the easier it is to fall into all kinds of denial. So for some this group fits perfectly with their denial-based life and gives them a cause to believe in because they don’t believe in themselves. This shows why they are so dedicated to the state, they don’t believe in their own abilities and rely on someone else, which is probably easier to fall into as a stay at home mom. This is one piece of the war on responsibility, a group with the message the state will take care of you and provide for your safety, so stop trying to be so responsible for yourself.

  24. avatar Fred says:

    I’m glad they did an artistic drawing for their video, it shows a few things. First, for them to draw supporters they literally have to draw supporters. Second, it shows they are disconnected with reality because to get their point across they have to illustrate it like a children’s book. This also shows they consider their audience to be essentially children of they expect this to impact them. The messages aren’t very deep, even the non-verbal ones; look at the renditions of the happy, diverse MDA examples compared to gun rights supporters. Not allowing comments is par for the course, but it reinforces the message that everyone else is a child and MDA is the mother because there is no discussion between children and mothers. MDA does what it does best here, tell you what to do “because I said so”. Their problem is they have no authority and no one is listening to them.

  25. avatar John says:

    Comments disabled. Shocking. If they were the voice of American they claim to be they wouldn’t need to close their comments section. They need to go away already.

  26. avatar William Burke says:

    They’re MOMS! Everybody loves MOMS. Your mommy says, “Give up your silly, child-killing guns! FOR MOM!”

    It ain’t very “arty”, neither.

  27. avatar SteveO says:

    And of course, and as usual, Clueless Cowards Demand Action posts this nonsense on Youtube and disables comments. I did learn from their video that two more places that I used to visit will no longer receive a dime of our families money. Thanks, idiots.

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