usatoday.com takes its Shannon Watts love-fest to the next level, offering readers a Q & A with the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (a wholly owned subsidiary of Mayors Against Illegal Guns). Yes, Ms. Watts’ replies contain the usual anti-gun agitprop. And yes, the McPaper shamelessly accepts the former PR exec’s inflated claims about MDA’s “membership.” But there’s some excellent intel within the highly-edited-by-mutual-agreement exchange. The warm-up: “Q: Did you have any personal experience with guns or violence? A: One in three Americans have, but I had never been affected by gun violence. I did not grow up in a home with guns, but my grandfathers were both World War II veterans and avid hunters.” So Shannon doesn’t have any skin in the game (really) and she’s turned her back on the sacrifices her family made for our freedoms. Who knew? And then it get’s interesting . . .
Q: Is your group anti-gun?
A: We are not; many of our moms are gun owners. We believe that you have the right to protect yourself with a weapon if that’s what you choose to do. I don’t (choose to) because the data shows that a gun in your house is more likely to be used against you or by one of your family members to commit suicide. I have five children that I don’t want to run that risk with. But that’s absolutely someone’s right.
It’s a shame that journalists are so busy sucking up to Mommy Watts that not one of them has asked gun control’s leading light to provide her definition of acceptable gun ownership. (The irony of the word “absolutely” in this context is exquisite.) The Obama supporter keeps her supposed support of our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms intentionally vague – and for good reason. A closer examination would reveal that she spits on the Second Amendment.
As Ms. Watts continues her fight for gun control, as her stock has risen beyond her wildest dreams, she’s been forced to take a stance on various disarmament proposals. To paraphrase the Good Book, by her screeds she shall be known:
Q: What do you want to see happen?
A: Background checks. Banning assault weapons. If you ban the assault weapons listed in the (Sen. Dianne) Feinstein (D-Calif.) bill, you would still have 2,000 firearms to choose from. That seems like a fair amount. Track and regulate ammunition. It is harder to buy Sudafed in this country than it is to buy ammunition, which is pretty stunning to me.
Do I have to say it? Americans don’t have a right to buy Sudafed (nor do they have to have a background check to buy it). Saying that government-monitored ammunition sales will reduce “gun violence” is alike saying government-monitored condom sales will reduce teenage pregnancies. As for Ms. Watts’ assertion that 2k guns is an acceptable amount of choice for American gun buyers, who appointed her fascist dictator? I want politicians to decide what guns I need like I want the police to come into my house (at a time of their choosing) and inspect my firearms storage procedures. Oh wait . . .
Q: Do you have goals for the coming year?
A: Only 15 states have laws that hold adults criminally negligent for not storing firearms safely. If a 3-year-old gets your firearm, which just happened here, in only 15 states can they bring charges. We want to change the nomenclature. This idea that a shooting that involves a toddler is accidental is asinine. If I was drinking and driving and hit my son, I would immediately go to jail. But if I left my firearm on the top of the refrigerator and he found it and shot himself, everyone says, what a horrible accident.
Gun owners should be held liable for negligence. But there’s no “gap” in the law. Even in states without firearms-specific laws against insufficient firearms storage leading to death or bodily harm, negligent gun owners can be held accountable in both criminal and civil courts under statutes covering manslaughter, child neglect and endangerment and more.
Again, as intimated above, safe storage laws are the thin end of the wedge for government infringement on Americans’ gun rights. Check out the post-Newtown gun control bill in Washington state authorizing inspections in the name of “safety.” Meanwhile, MDA’s media push on “safe storage” laws “for the children” has already found fertile ground. Today’s poughkeepsiejournal.com announces Group seeks to strengthen N.Y.’s law on gun locks.
Q: Have you been to Newtown, Conn.?
A: I have not. They want privacy. We had 70 events in 40 states on the anniversary of Newtown, and we didn’t have any in Newtown. This isn’t about Newtown. That could have been any town. This is about preventing the horrific, senseless and avoidable pain of losing somebody to gun violence. The gunman in Newtown took out 26 human lives in less than five minutes. It shouldn’t be that easy.
No, it shouldn’t. Which is about the only thing upon which gun rights advocates and Ms. Watts agree.