MoveOn.org’s Plan to Destroy the National Rifle Association’s Credibility in Washington

Screen Shot 2015-11-12 at 9.57.03 PM

TTAG reader mister3D sent us this email blast from MoveOn.org (who somehow forgot to use the words “Gun Safety” in their anti-gun rights agitprop):

Dear MoveOn member,

We’ve developed a breakthrough strategy to destroy the National Rifle Association’s credibility in Washington: gun owners committed to fighting for gun control. You see, the truth is . . .

that only a tiny minority of gun owners actually belong to the NRA—and most of them don’t even agree with it. If the silent majority of gun owners who support gun control speak out, they’ll blow the NRA’s cover, so we can finally take action to prevent gun violence and save lives—including by helping President Obama issue an executive order this month to close the background check loophole.

Here’s our plan: After the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon last month, MoveOn launched Gun Owners for Gun Control, which now has 32,260 members. Next week, we’re bringing 15 of them—thoughtful, experienced, and responsible gun owners, including former NRA members—to Washington, D.C., for meetings with the White House, members of Congress, and the media.

But we still need to raise the money to cover the cost of the gun owner delegation, to take the message they deliver in D.C. and get it out across the country, and then to continue organizing this incredibly powerful group of MoveOn members. Can you chip in $3 to help responsible gun owners stand up to the NRA?

comments

  1. avatar Ralph says:

    Quisling, Degrelle and Mussert, your party is calling.

    1. avatar Sanchanim says:

      I got that email too.
      Yes I get their emails.
      More keyboard warriors with no motivation to actually get involved. We will see how that works out.

      1. avatar Powerwiz says:

        I love that term! Keyboard warriors!

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “I love that term! Keyboard warriors!”

          Powerwiz, you must be new to the internet…

        2. avatar Bostondude30 says:

          Moveon doesn’t need to destroy their credibility?!? They don’t have any credibility just a noose around the necks of the GOP.

      2. avatar GT says:

        I’m a retired PowerPoint Ranger. I have carpal tunnel to prove it.

        Let’s see if their strategy backfires and incentivizes more gun owners to become NRA members.

        1. avatar RMiss says:

          I know its things like this that motivated me to join. I’d like to make the un-silent majority of gun owners louder.

    2. avatar Louis Marschalko says:

      I see your point. But in some respects our current situation is even more dire, though less imminent, than was theirs. If Americans are ever disarmed, we will be disarmed by the Democrat Party, as I see it. And the Democrat Party can only win elections by mobilizing the Third World masses admitted to our land by “virtue” of the 1965 Immigration Act. The demographic represented by pre-1965 America is voting Republican, and presumptively pro-gun, by a ratio of about 2:3. We cannot divorce the battle for gun rights from broader attacks on Western Christian values, cultures and customs. Western Europe is largely dead, killed off by the forces of “cultural marxism”, schooled by the “Frankfurt School” of political philosophy. Occupy Wall Street, the Ferguson events, and now “Mizzou”, Yale and elsewhere just other fronts of the cultural marxist’s war on our way of life. A way of life which includes, but is far from limited to, privately owned and individually carried guns.

      1. avatar Troy says:

        You mention cultural marxism and frankfurt school without mentioning the jewish roots. Always call out the jew, they are the biggest agitators in the world, masquerading as White people. Don’t let these people scare you, call them out for what they are.

        1. avatar Stan d. Upnow says:

          How are the twisted anti-semite lessons going, guy? Imbecile.

        2. avatar B.malloy89 says:

          The founder and owner of TTAG is Jewish. How about you take your anti-Semitism elsewhere. We don’t need or want you on our side.

        3. avatar The Defenders Team says:

          Good for you!! It happens I went to a high school with 30% Jewish students and many Jewish teachers who were excellent. I also ended up marrying into a Jewish family and my Jewish in-laws are people I cherish and enjoy having. I can say: My father’s generation was the one which killed off the Nazis (and the Japanese imperialists too). But Nazis keep popping up even now and right here in the country my father’s generation fought for (at great cost). I guess if I had to I’d gladly finish the job my father and his generation started. 🙂

    3. avatar Jim Barrett says:

      They are right about one thing though. If the NRA’s membership numbers are only in the 5-6 million range and the other pro gun orgs have even smaller numbers (with some membership overlaps), then that does indeed account for a very small percentage of gun owners who belong given the 300-4000 million guns in this country.

      1. avatar The Defenders Team says:

        I suspect many others share your objections to the NRA and I have the same kind of doubts about them. But I have seen how effective such gun organizations can be when the top people become creative and aggressive on behalf of gun owners and gun rights.

        I believe two things: 1. is that there’re 100 million plus gun owners but there are only about 5% who’re active in demanding government recognized all of the Bill of Rights, not just gun rights.

        2. is that even 20% of 100 million gun owners becoming active participants would make gun owners the largest “demographic” in politics and WOULD become able to tilt any election to any candidate who honestly wants to restore our Bill of Rights. There wouldn’t be a gun control Democrat left in any office at any level of government IF we could get the non-participating gun owners off their excuse-making butts.

        Actually #3 is: I believe there are causes and goals which are bigger than me and bigger than anyone. The Marine Corps believes this and so do all the other military branches. True patriotism is believing OUR COUNTRY is a bigger cause than any of us. People can be inspired to work and act for that cause:the United States of America. Lets lay off the excuse making and start working for the cause we all believe in.

        1. avatar Stan d. Upnow says:

          Well said. Apathy is deadly.

  2. avatar TommyG says:

    What a bunch of self serving delusion. Are they really that stupid?

    1. avatar Dan F says:

      Yes.

      Thankfully.

  3. avatar Mark Lee says:

    Highly ambitious and delusional to the last.

  4. avatar PeterC says:

    I’d chip in $3 to publish the names and home addresses of those fifteen, plus the names and home addresses of the top people in MoveOn.org.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Maybe they can try getting the money from Seattle’s ammo tax, hehe.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      If you want to know about the top people at MoveOn.org, start with George Soros.

  5. avatar SdubM45 says:

    Sorry, would rather donate to the.”bring back MST3K” kickstarter.

    1. avatar Paul53 says:

      Count me in! I’m a misty.

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      I’m in!

    3. KEEP CIRCULATING THE TAPES

  6. avatar James says:

    A stroke of pure genius.

    1. avatar Timmy! says:

      “A poor genius had a stroke.”

      FIFY

  7. avatar Don says:

    Typo… number is actually 32 (decimal point) 260. the .260 being inside a pregnant lady with raging hormones.

    I think the truth is there’s a huge number of people that are not NRA paid members that either agree with the NRA or actually think they’re too damn soft and willing to compromise. I’m somewhere in between those two and did finally sign up after decades of saying I was going to, “when I get around to it”.

  8. avatar Another Robert says:

    Do they count “members” the same way the “moms” do–by FB likes and website hits and such? MoveOn’s a bit late to the party, other guys have been dragging Fudds, both real and fictitious, out of the woodwork for months now. You suppose they are going to get Everytown’s “back of the pickup” guy to come?

    1. avatar JSJ says:

      I don’t know how they count, but it looks like there are defectors.
      “which now has 32,260 members”
      The front page count is now down to 20,151

  9. avatar BDub says:

    There is a serious logical disconnect in there. Just because a large portion of gun owners aren’t NRA members, and may not always agree with the NRA’s positions, DOES NOT automatically mean they are for gun control.

    If that’s the line of thinking they want to base a strategy on….more power to them. Never interupt and enemy….and all that.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      One of Alinksy’s rules: “Isolate and demonize the enemy.” Remember that? They’re just another “me too” group begging on the Internet.

    2. avatar Another Robert says:

      I think a lot of them are actually starting to believe their own mythology, in this case, that the NRA is actually a tiny cabal of oligarchs who, despite their total lack of support from everyone else in America, have managed to put the entire legislative branch of the federal government in their pocket. Sort of like the idiot former Congresswoman from New York calling on gun manufacturers and distributors to stop marketing “military-purposed semi-automatic assault weapons” to civilians, as if that gun-grabber-concocted phrase had any real meaning to someone who actually knows something about guns, like, say, a gun manufacturer.

    3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      The real irony there is that most gun owners who disagree ideologically with NRA (especially the ones who intentionally aren’t paid members) do so because they don’t think NRA goes far *enough* in supporting gun rights.

  10. avatar onespeedbiker says:

    Just more liberals’ war on reality. I’d love to see the response to this. I’m guessing at the end of the week they’ll come up with about $97.32 (sure, it should be a multiple of $3 but liberals are not good with numbers)..

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Originally, it was a nice, round $300, but the guy who wrote up the plea had to take his cut, and his girlfriend needed to be paid, too. Legitimate handling costs, see?

    2. avatar Stan d. Upnow says:

      DO NOT make the mistake of underestimating these people. The gun-banners have been relentlessly pursuing their agenda for decades, and won’t stop. The NRA is our only big voice and has consistently fought for All gun-owners, members or not. Even if you have some issues with them(I do), support the NRA.

  11. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    They do amuse me so. Ooohhhh, a bunch of quisling “gun owners ” are meeting with BHO, and can’t afford the fare? They call that grassroots, I call that pathetic. Still, keep your powder dry. Paris is only a small taste of what’s coming.

    BTW, I’m predicting a republican landslide in 2016.

    1. avatar HP says:

      I hope you’re right about the Republican landslide, and wrong about Paris.

      1. avatar Mr. AR-10 says:

        Republican leadership is in on the game, giving them power is no win, this is part of the plan.

        Hell, if the Republican party was on the side of the conservative these past few years would have seen enormous progress on conservative things out of DC. It’s not coincidence that Republicans give in every time to Democrats.

        It is these men that are the real problem and who must be defeated and replaced; all of them.

        And this is no small task.

      2. avatar Stan d. Upnow says:

        Ditto the landslide. I predict the Eiffel Tower to be their next target. Hope I’m wrong.

        1. avatar The Defenders Team says:

          Of the two possible threats, I think that Gun Grudge Democrats are the greater and more immediate threat compared to terrorists and their periodic attacks. The terrorists have more limited success in the US partly because of government monitoring (Homeland Security, etc). But terrorist attacks here do happen and the targets so far have all been soft targets: places where people are prohibited from having effective counter-force (gun free zones). Same applies to school shooters and school gun free zones. THIS is were WE get to discredit the Gun Grudge Democrats.

          We don’t know what the actual capabilities are for ISIS or any other Islamic Extremist terror group. If they are in “GOOD” position, they will attack where they believe it will do them the most good. Obviously- they’ll pick soft targets over hardened targets where they are “expected” and can face effective counter force. I won’t try to predict what will be the next target. I won’t even name some of the “best targets” in our country. Lets hope the French are smart enough to protect their landmarks and let it go at that. That doesn’t prevent us from “mentioning” that, if they allowed their own citizens to be armed, they’d have “reserve forces” serving without cost in every stadium, restaurant and theater.

          And it’s worth mentioning again: from the wanna-be shooter’s perspective, having to attack a place where even 5% of the intended victims are invisibly armed kinda discourages choosing such places. But if those same people are openly carrying their guns – the become the FIRST targets of any attacker.

  12. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “But we still need to raise the money to cover the cost of the gun owner delegation, to take the message they deliver in D.C. and get it out across the country, and then to continue organizing this incredibly powerful group of MoveOn members. Can you chip in $3 to help responsible gun owners stand up to the NRA?”

    Oh, please.

    You’re the ones who have a guy worth over 10 Billion (that’s ten thousand million) dollars to bankroll your op.

    It’s *literally* chump change for Bloomie…

    1. avatar boardsnbikes says:

      “…We’re bringing 15 of them…But we still need to raise the money to cover the cost of the gun owner delegation”

      That makes me laugh compared to the 10s of thousands of NRA members who pay their own way to the Annual Meeting.

  13. avatar FedUp says:

    One of their Quislings is active at MI Open Carry. He even bought a membership, but all he does on the forum is find new ways to say “I’m a gun loving ex-cop, and I demand more gun control”.

    https://forums.miopencarry.org/index.php/topic,5092.0.html

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      We get his type occasionally at INGO. They don’t typically stick around too long, when they get called out for their hypocrisy.

    2. avatar The Defenders Team says:

      Speaking of MI Open Carry: I don’t believe their claim that they cause the public to get used to seeing strangers carrying guns for ONE DAMNED MINUTE. They are too small a group to make a difference and have the opposite from the claimed effect whenever, wherever they show up.

      I got my first MI CPL in 1968. I have never caused anyone to feel nervous or threatened in all those years. Nor have I ever left my gun in a toilet stall or had a negligent discharge. I have sat with people who don’t like guns but are comfortable around me even when they know I have a concealed handgun because they BELIEVE I’m acting responsibly and safely. Then idiots from Open Carry show up and cause fear, anger and objections to anyone carrying a gun. No thanks, Michigan Open Carry, you are not a friend of the gun rights movement in Michigan or anywhere else!

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        No thanks, Michigan Open Carry, you are not a friend of the gun rights movement in Michigan or anywhere else!

        Well, there is certainly evidence of someone not being a friend of the gun rights movement. Who needs Bloomberg, when we have such attitudes among our own?

        1. avatar The Defenders Team says:

          @ Chip Bennett: So it’s wrong for people to avoid stirring the anti-gun Nancies up and carrying a gun with a license showing I am NOT a crackpot extremists showing off his gun? Is it “our job” to defend the bad tactical and political thinking of a minority which is “proud” to become the Stranger With A Gun” in public places?? Hah!

          PROVE that open carry does any good at all. But remember, you’re not dealing with a few ‘enemies’ of gun rights – you are dealing with the people who are respected EVEN in towns where liberals are the majority but don’t object to people who look just like them being armed.

          There’re a few hundred private retail businesses and malls in Michigan which “ban” firearms worn by customers.
          Open carry IS THE MOST EASY to ban, obviously. So what do concealed carry people do when they go shopping? They don’t have to leave their gun at home, that’s for sure. I’m sure most just go shopping with their gun concealed where it’s NEVER SEEN and can’t be interfered with because of some unconstitutional belief on the part of the “property owner.” Who’s smarter, open carry or concealed carry, Chip?

          Open Carry people are the Poster Children for bad tactical thinking. There’s no obligation for anyone to support what amounts to bad advertising. When you can show proof that open carry provides benefits to the gun rights movement, then let us know.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          So it’s wrong for people to avoid stirring the anti-gun Nancies up…

          I never said that was wrong. If you want to let the irrational fears of others dictate how you live your life, more power to you.

          …and carrying a gun with a license…

          I’m not sure how licensing entered the discussion?

          …showing I am NOT a crackpot extremists showing off his gun?

          Open carriers are not “crackpot extremists,” and in declaring their motives, you’re merely projecting.

          Is it “our job” to defend the bad tactical and political thinking…

          Concealed carry is tactically neutral. Open carry actively deters criminals. As for politics, open carry advocates have been a net gain, by a large margin.

          …of a minority which is “proud” to become the Stranger With A Gun” in public places?? Hah!

          Why do I get the sense that you share the antis’ irrational fear of strangers with guns in public places?

          PROVE that open carry does any good at all.

          I don’t have to prove jack. I merely support the right of law-abiding people to exercise a natural, civil, constitutionally protected right in the manner that they see fit.

          Who’s smarter, open carry or concealed carry, Chip?

          False premise. Neither carry method is or must be “smarter than” the other – and certainly not on the basis of one carry method incurring a minor inconvenience while shopping.

          Open Carry people are the Poster Children for bad tactical thinking.

          [Citation Needed]

          When you can show proof that open carry provides benefits to the gun rights movement, then let us know.

          I don’t presume to require someone else to demonstrate a benefit to me personally or to society as a whole in order to exercise a natural, civil, constitutionally protected right in the manner that they see fit.

          But, since you’re the one doing so: how about you show proof that the open carry movement provides a detriment to the gun rights movement?

        3. avatar The Defenders Team says:

          @ Chip,
          By not recognizing that open carry presents a danger to the person carrying a gun, you show your ignorance of incidents where such people have been seen, targeted and taken down or had their gun taken away. One part of the public sees a stranger with a gun and – rationally – assumes a potential threat. You call avoiding that quite rational reaction “letting the irrational fears of others dictate…” Nope, I have the same reaction when some scruffball walk into a Starbucks sporting a gun. Finally, law enforcement often gets a “man with a gun” call and the responding officer(s) QUITE RATIONALLY see what the caller saw: a stranger of unknown intention with a gun in a public place. So how do you guarantee there’ll be no “misunderstanding” that could easily cause police to draw their guns and create another danger?

          More likely, you’re using your own habitual obliviousness to simply erase the evidence everyone else sees. Likewise, you’ve stated your antipathy toward anyone who “doesn’t recognize your rights.” Keeping your gun out of sight violates no rights. Freedom and rights are always dependent on individuals using them correctly, not using them as an excuse for bad judgement and lack of sophistication.

          I’m not too concerned, just annoyed. Annoyed at the hangers-on attaching themselves to legitimate pro-gun organizations because their numbers are too small to support a pro gun organization on their own. Annoyed because the responsible gun owners have to waste time “explaining” the bad judgement of open carry people so we don’t get painted with the same brush. If one of the open carry yo-yos does get shot in that back by a criminal or mistakenly shot by police: that’ll be more ammunition for the anti-gun Nancies.

          You don’t understand politics at all, Chip. You don’t have to convince me or debate with me: I am not the one trying to eliminate BOTH kinds of bearing arms. You also make the mistake of dismissing the anti-gun people and thereby underestimating them. Michigan’s RINO Governor Rick Snyder just vetoed a bill which would have EXPANDED concealed carry in the state. He did that because he buys the argument of the teachers union and the school boards which is that “guns in schools cannot be tolerated.” So when they get the political victory – you’re still saying their opinion doesn’t count! You need a visit to the eye doctor ’cause you’re nearly blind. 🙂

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          @ Chip,
          By not recognizing that open carry presents a danger to the person carrying a gun, you show your ignorance of incidents where such people have been seen, targeted and taken down or had their gun taken away.

          [Citation Needed]

          Again, still: please post statistics of this alleged hazard.

          750,000 police officers open carry daily. Of them, around 5-10 per year are killed by their own (open carried) service pistol. Where are all the non-LEO open carriers having their firearms stolen and used against them?

          One part of the public sees a stranger with a gun and – rationally – assumes a potential threat.

          Wrong. That fear is not rational; it is utterly irrational. Criminals overwhelmingly (90%+) conceal their weapons. Someone openly carrying a firearm is providing tacit evidence of being a non-threat.

          You call avoiding that quite rational reaction “letting the irrational fears of others dictate…”

          …because that fear is demonstrably irrational. Please cite evidence of crimes committed by people openly carrying firearms.

          Nope, I have the same reaction when some scruffball walk into a Starbucks sporting a gun.

          Your fear is irrational.

          Finally, law enforcement often gets a “man with a gun” call and the responding officer(s) QUITE RATIONALLY see what the caller saw: a stranger of unknown intention with a gun in a public place.

          Boo-freaking-hoo. You don’t need to know, much right have a right to know, the intentions of others as they lawfully conduct their affairs in public places. That’s how liberty works. If you don’t like it, tough. Otherwise, as even our black-robed tyrants in the Supreme Court have affirmed (US v Black), where the carry of a firearm is lawful, the mere act of carrying a firearm, absent any other evidence of unlawful activity, does not constitute reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity.

          So how do you guarantee there’ll be no “misunderstanding” that could easily cause police to draw their guns and create another danger?

          I can make no such guarantee. After all, the police officer might think the law-abiding person conducting his affiars in a lawful manner is some kind of “crazy constitutionalist”, and draw down on him with no justification whatsoever.

          More likely, you’re using your own habitual obliviousness to simply erase the evidence everyone else sees.

          If the evidence is so plentiful, I urge you to disabuse me of my alleged misconceptions, by citing it.

          Likewise, you’ve stated your antipathy toward anyone who “doesn’t recognize your rights.”

          (You seem to have a problem with this notion, which coincides with your distaste for tolerating others’ exercise of liberty.)

          Keeping your gun out of sight violates no rights.

          Yes, it does – if a person is forced to keep a firearm out of sight, against his wishes.

          Freedom and rights are always dependent on individuals using them correctly, not using them as an excuse for bad judgement and lack of sophistication.

          Where is the evidence that openly carrying a firearm is “bad judgement”? As for a supposed “lack of sophistication”: plenty of law-abiding people here in Flyover Country open carry firearms daily, without incident. If metrosexual urbanites consider that to be a “lack of sophistication”, I’d wager that most in Flyover Country would consider that a badge of honor.

          I’m not too concerned, just annoyed. Annoyed at the hangers-on attaching themselves to legitimate pro-gun organizations because their numbers are too small to support a pro gun organization on their own. Annoyed because the responsible gun owners have to waste time “explaining” the bad judgement of open carry people so we don’t get painted with the same brush. If one of the open carry yo-yos does get shot in that back by a criminal or mistakenly shot by police: that’ll be more ammunition for the anti-gun Nancies.

          [Citation Needed]

          Where has that happened? As far as I’m aware, the last person “shot in the back by a criminal” was a concealed carrier in Las Vegas, who drew and fired on one attacker, without seeing the attacker’s partner behind him.

          You don’t understand politics at all, Chip.

          …says the person who is afraid at the mere sight of a holstered firearm? I think I’ll keep my own counsel regarding what I do and don’t understand.

          You don’t have to convince me or debate with me: I am not the one trying to eliminate BOTH kinds of bearing arms.

          How are you any better than them? You are trying to use the power of the state to force others to live their lives in the manner of your choosing, at the expense of their liberties. As far as I’m concerned, denying someone half of a right is no better than denying that person the entire right.

          You also make the mistake of dismissing the anti-gun people and thereby underestimating them.

          Where have I dismissed the anti-gun people? Where have I underestimated them?

          Michigan’s RINO Governor Rick Snyder just vetoed a bill which would have EXPANDED concealed carry in the state. He did that because he buys the argument of the teachers union and the school boards which is that “guns in schools cannot be tolerated.” So when they get the political victory – you’re still saying their opinion doesn’t count!

          I said that? Where did I say that? Please cite/quote something I said.

          You need a visit to the eye doctor ’cause you’re nearly blind. 🙂

          I’m not the one mistaking straw men for flesh-and-blood. Physician, heal thyself.

        5. avatar The Defenders Team says:

          RE “I said that? Where did I say that? Please cite/quote something I said.” Your entire commentary is laced with casual dismissals.

          That’s exactly what will trip you up. I leave it to you to self justify “meticulously.” I’m in no mood to supply all the information and education you need to catch up with the society and country you live in. There’re plenty of maladjusted minorities, you’ve found the one which best suits you.

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          That’s exactly what will trip you up. I leave it to you to self justify “meticulously.” I’m in no mood to supply all the information and education you need to catch up with the society and country you live in.

          In other words: you can’t cite anything I’ve actually said, so you resort to amateur-level avoidance.

          There’re plenty of maladjusted minorities, you’ve found the one which best suits you.

          Overweight, red-headed, left handers?

          Oh, I guess you meant open carriers. I carry concealed. Thanks for playing.

        7. avatar The Defenders Team says:

          Your membership in People Who Never Get It == hasn’t expired, I see. 🙂

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Your membership in People Who Never Get It == hasn’t expired, I see. 🙂

          I’ll take this as a tacit admission that you cannot articulate a logical response.

        9. avatar The Defenders Team says:

          I can articulate logical responses all day long but I reserve those things for people who can understand them and are worth the trouble. You are neither of those so…. 26 states allow open carry, 9 do not. Know you know where you can move to.
          Besides, you’ve already confessed that your whole series of posts is a charade. Why should anyone bother responding to a high school level verbal game player?? I’m sure you find yourself quite entertaining. What more can you ask?

        10. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I can articulate logical responses all day long but I reserve those things for people who can understand them and are worth the trouble. You are neither of those so….

          Ad hominem. Yawn.

          26 states allow open carry, 9 do not. Know you know where you can move to.

          45 States allow open carry in some form or another. Thankfully, I live in Indiana, one of the most RKBA-friendly states in the Union.

          Besides, you’ve already confessed that your whole series of posts is a charade.

          A charade? How completely can one miss the point? I stand up for the rights of others, even if they choose to exercise those rights in a manner differently than I choose to exercise them.

          Why should anyone bother responding to a high school level verbal game player?? I’m sure you find yourself quite entertaining.

          Hey, you’re the one who has yet to respond with anything other than logical fallacy. Perhaps you should ask yourself that question.

          What more can you ask?

          Well, I’ve asked several things – almost none of which you’ve provided responses for. Shall I summarize them? Here are all of the things I’ve written, to which you have responded with a mixture of logical fallacy and silence:

          Open carriers are not “crackpot extremists,” and in declaring their motives, you’re merely projecting.

          (No response. No evidence offered to support the claim that open carriers are “crackpot extremists”.)

          Concealed carry is tactically neutral. Open carry actively deters criminals.

          (No response. No evidence offered to refute either point.)

          As for politics, open carry advocates have been a net gain, by a large margin.

          (No response. No evidence offered to refute this point.)

          “Open Carry people are the Poster Children for bad tactical thinking.

          [Citation Needed]”

          (No response. No evidence offered to support the claim that open carry people are the “Poster Children for bad tactical thinking.”)

          But, since you’re the one doing so: how about you show proof that the open carry movement provides a detriment to the gun rights movement?

          (No response. No evidence to support the claim that the open carry movement provides a detriment to the gun rights movement.)

          [Citation Needed]

          Again, still: please post statistics of this alleged hazard.

          750,000 police officers open carry daily. Of them, around 5-10 per year are killed by their own (open carried) service pistol. Where are all the non-LEO open carriers having their firearms stolen and used against them?

          (No response. No evidence offered to support the claim that open carriers incur a risk of having their weapons taken and used against them.)

          Wrong. That fear is not rational; it is utterly irrational. Criminals overwhelmingly (90%+) conceal their weapons. Someone openly carrying a firearm is providing tacit evidence of being a non-threat.

          (No response. No evidence offered to support the claim that open carriers are a threat, or to refute the claim that open carriers are a tacit non-threat.)

          …because that fear is demonstrably irrational. Please cite evidence of crimes committed by people openly carrying firearms.

          (No response. No evidence offered to support the claim of crimes committed by open carriers.)

          If the evidence is so plentiful, I urge you to disabuse me of my alleged misconceptions, by citing it.

          (No response. No evidence offered.)

          Where is the evidence that openly carrying a firearm is “bad judgement”?

          (No response. No evidence offered to support the claim that openly carrying a firearm is “bad judgement.”)

          “If one of the open carry yo-yos does get shot in that back by a criminal or mistakenly shot by police: that’ll be more ammunition for the anti-gun Nancies.”

          [Citation Needed]

          Where has that happened? As far as I’m aware, the last person “shot in the back by a criminal” was a concealed carrier in Las Vegas, who drew and fired on one attacker, without seeing the attacker’s partner behind him.

          (No response. No evidence of open carriers being shot in the back by criminals or mistakenly shot by police.)

          “You also make the mistake of dismissing the anti-gun people and thereby underestimating them.”

          Where have I dismissed the anti-gun people? Where have I underestimated them?

          (No citations or quotes given, to prove that I dismiss or underestimate anti-gun people.)

        11. avatar The Defenders Team says:

          Well, at least I have you playing your own time-wasting game. 🙂

          A charade? How completely can one miss the point? I stand up for the rights of others, even if they choose to exercise those rights in a manner differently than I choose to exercise them.

          1. Don’t weasel. Own it.

          2. But you don’t stand up for my right to make a judgement call on Open Carry? Hah! You just got caught in your own word trap. I stick to my judgement on this matter. You don’t stand for anything but your own opinion and your desire to discredit others who express any other opinion but the one you favor. I posted my opinion, no one has to accept it. THAT is standing up for freedom. (You’ve just been schooled.)

        12. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Well, at least I have you playing your own time-wasting game. 🙂

          So you admit your lack of seriousness and sincerity in engaging in discourse. Duly noted.

          A charade? How completely can one miss the point? I stand up for the rights of others, even if they choose to exercise those rights in a manner differently than I choose to exercise them.

          1. Don’t weasel. Own it.

          How have I failed to “own it”? How have I “weaseled”?

          2. But you don’t stand up for my right to make a judgement call on Open Carry?

          Yet another straw man? Lame.

          Where have I indicated that I don’t stand up for your right to make a judgment call? You’re quite free to make that judgment call. I’m merely pointing out that you are utterly, demonstrably, empirically wrong in your judgment call.

          Hah! You just got caught in your own word trap.

          And you just failed middle-school logic.

          I stick to my judgement on this matter.

          Please do, and more power to you. You have admitted your irrational fear of strangers carrying firearms in public, and you should live your own life accordingly. Just don’t try to force others to live according to your irrational fears.

          You don’t stand for anything but your own opinion and your desire to discredit others who express any other opinion but the one you favor.

          Saying something doesn’t make it true. I stand for liberty, and the right of the law-abiding to exercise liberty in a free society. I desire for society to live and let live – for every law-abiding person to be free to live his life and exercise his rights unimpeded by the statist control and “judgment calls” of others.

          If advocating for liberty requires me to discredit some wrong opinions along the way, then so be it.

          I posted my opinion, no one has to accept it.

          You’re welcome to your own opinions; you are not, however, welcome to your own facts. I am as welcome to refute your wrong opinions as you are to espouse them.

          THAT is standing up for freedom.

          No; forcing others to live according to your opinion is not freedom; it is the exact opposite of freedom.

          (You’ve just been schooled.)

          Where? Eighth grade?

        13. avatar The Defenders Team says:

          congrats, time well wasted. 🙂

  14. avatar Joe R. says:

    The only thing the “silent majority” will be convinced of is GOING DARK (since we’re already “silent”).

    FYI – The NRA is RIGHT OF YOU, and they still ain’t ‘right’. If WE chuck them, YOU will be long gone by them.

    Silence ≠ Consent

    HOWEVER – Silence ≠ Coalition with you either.

    Silence is what the firing squad gives you a little of, before giving you an eternity of it. [J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012]

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      btw – whole thing sounds like a concoction of the NRA.

      … only 42 Days, 6 Hours, 8 Minutes, and 37 Seconds… UNTIL CHRISTMAS. . .

      F the NRA, with their opponents.

  15. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Next week, we’re bringing all 15 of them—useful idiots, sheep, and responsible Bolsheviks, including former Fudd NRA members—to Washington, D.C., for meetings with the White House dictator, members of the Communist Congress, and the Goebbels Nazi media.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Then they’re going to be featured at a rally in a booth at the Subway in Union Station, after which they’ll beg for loose change from rush hour commuters.

      GIVE ME A BREAK!

  16. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    Nothin’ to see here, folks. MoveOn.

  17. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

    The NRA is wrong. Send me money.
    Damn, it didn’t work.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      It was sent to the Castle Anthrax…

      *snicker*

      1. avatar Daily Beatings says:

        … and here in Castle Anthrax, we have but one punishment.

  18. avatar W says:

    “MoveOn launched Gun Owners for Gun Control, which now has 32,260 members.”

    The NRA sees your 32,260 and raises you 5,000,000.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Gun Owners for Gun Control: AKA Gun Owners Who Want Liberals To Like Them

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        “Our motto: Guns for me but not for thee.”

    2. avatar JSJ says:

      now 500,000,001

  19. avatar Jim says:

    Those gun owners should sell their guns to raise their own money.

    1. avatar Stan d. Upnow says:

      Excellent!

  20. avatar Kyle says:

    I would love to hear the thoughts of these “thoughtful, experienced, responsible” gun owners who are members. I’d bet dollars-to-donuts that a great majority of them are FUDD-types who have all the classic misconceptions about firearms.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I’d like to hear what their annual dues are.

  21. avatar rob g says:

    I used to be a member of the NRA. I’ve joined a few times and then let the membership lapse. I prefer to spend that money on ammo. My problem with them is that they will work with Democrats. ANY Democrat that voted for Obamacare (all) is not really going to do sh!t to really protect gun rights when the executive pen and phone come out. I think the NRA has some really great people on their staff, but I think any organization that sets up shop in DC eventually becomes corrupted by the beltway environment, where success is measured by creating more laws and compromising. I got real tired of them constantly begging for more money, too.

  22. avatar George says:

    “Just more liberals’ war on reality.” – great quote – that sums it all up.

    In Iraq 30 ISIS fighters were able to take over a town of 5000 gunless residients. That’s the reality that the founding fathers knew about and the reality that liberals want to pretend doesn’t exist.

  23. avatar )]oo[[oo[Jonathan - Houston says:

    Moveon.org began two decades as an apologist shill for the convicted liar, disbarred lawyer, sexual predator, humiliated president Clinton, urging the country to move on from the scandals.

    Now they’re just another professional grievance group and perpetual fundraising machine.

  24. avatar Phil LA says:

    Time to send the NRA another $10.

  25. avatar Defens says:

    Time for mockery. I’d like to see a Photoshopped pic of Justen Rubin (moveon’s president) holding a giant dildo over his head with one hand, shouting, “From my Cold, Dead, Penis!”

  26. avatar KB says:

    Don’t take these people too lightly. They are relentless. Whether or not you agree with the NRA it’s really the only real game in town.
    Yes there are other organizations, but none with the clout of the NRA.
    You can laugh these people off but they are not going away. We really have to take them seriously.

  27. If I send them $6, will they keep going until they reach Moscow?

  28. avatar Paelorian says:

    “I own a flare gun!” “I have an antique family heirloom musket! I deactivated it.” “I own a $100,000 shotgun I use for sporting clays!”

    These people may be gun owners, but they’re no more part of the gun culture I belong to than Barack Obama is. It would almost be refreshing to see “I carry a concealed pistol and knife every day, I attend regular training classes, I keep an AR or AK by the bedside with a 40-round magazine, I belong to a militia, I believe there exists a fundamental human right to keep and bear military-style weaponry, I want the NFA severely weakened and preferably repealed alongside the Gun Control Act and other unconstitutional evil laws, but… but… well, but nothing I suppose.”

    1. avatar Silver says:

      Gunsplaining. People who aren’t part of our culture pretending to speak on its behalf.

  29. avatar Silver says:

    Wow, they managed to type over 30,000 fake names into the membership registry. Impressive.

    They should just call it the 9th Circle of Hell Convention, since that’s the circle reserved for traitors.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Nah. They’re probably just counting their number of “likes” on Facebook.

      1. avatar The Defenders Team says:

        Yeah, like they got 60 million plus “fake votes” for Obama – TWICE!! Don’t get cocky.

  30. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    I have an idea-if you claim to be a gun rights hating gun owner turn those nasty guns in(or your life gets ruined?)…

  31. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    32,000 “members.” I assume there wasn’t a membership fee as they’re hustling for money to pay for bus fare.

  32. avatar The Defenders Team says:

    I can see why Move On has decided to recruit actual gun owners to advocate Democrat gun control. That’s because the NRA and even GOA have less than 5% of gun owners as members. It is true that only a minority of any group are activists. Gun owners are basically self-selected non participants on the Democrat gun control issue. This is tragic (and even dangerous) because, potentially, even another 10% of 100 million gun owners could “own” every damned election if they were committed and even a little coordinated by the NRA and GOA (and maybe the USCCA). Because of this unconcern, we are doomed to seeing Democrats survive and persist in their effort to disarm American civilians. That the Democrats get any traction at all by saying we should be like Australia, the UK and FRANCE is a sure sign of this gun owner unconcern.

  33. avatar Bob109 says:

    Hmm, I wonder if these guys cannot afford travel expenses because they had to buy a gun so they could be parroted around DC as gun owners.

  34. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    NRA: 5,000,000 gun owners willing to put their money where their convictions lie.

    “Gun Owners for Gun Control”: some inflated number of slactivists who need to crowd-source their funding for them.

  35. avatar David says:

    I have to wish them good luck with the AstroTrufing. Its the latest gimick. The sense I get is that they will burn themselves out. They don’t understand us and will keep making dumb mistakes. I plan to go to my state house on gun bill testimony day and do my part. Every time in the past its been a few of them and many of us. I hope to keep it that way.

    1. avatar The Defenders Team says:

      Don’t be too sure. Remember, until the Great Depression brought Germany to its knees, the Nazi Party was thought to be a fringe group much like Move On (and other extremist gun control fanatics). So it’s possible that, given the right conditions, we might find ourselves outmaneuvered. Remember too: the same kind of people succeeded in getting Barrack Obama elected and re-elected.

      Never underestimate our enemies. The NRA hasn’t got 100% credibility anyway or the NRA would have 100 million members, not 5 million.

  36. avatar Jim says:

    Wouldn’t be nice if they accidentally chose NRA members to go to DC and had them speak the truth. Just sayin’.

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