Moms Demand Action Lobbied Against Law That Saved Lives in Texas Church Shooting

Shannon Watts

It should come as no surprise that Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America lobbied hard against the Texas law that allowed Jack Wilson and other parishioners to defend themselves in their church. Just take a look at the “against” witness list for SB 535

 

Now, after the law ensured that lives were saved at the West Freeway Church of Christ, the Moms’ fearless leader, Shannon Watts is upset that what they lobbied against actually proved to be the best option to stop a massacre.

Shannon Watts tweet guns church

Courtesy Twitter

Thankfully, as we all know, the measure passed.

Bloomberg’s moms will lobby against anything that has to do with “common sense” safety measures to protect people if it involves the use of firearms for defensive purposes.

These people are a real threat to public safety due to their efforts to advocate for and impose laws that create victims — and cost lives — instead of empowering people to defend themselves lawfully in life or death situations.

 

This post was originally published at Mom-at-Arms and is reprinted here with permission. 

comments

  1. avatar Dennis says:

    Yeah, and we demand action against the phony organizations funded and organized by slimeballs like George Soros!

    1. avatar Xavier says:

      Look at that ‘against list’… Brittany, Molly, Rebecca, Jenny, Eva, Susan, Melissa, Emma….Shannon.

      This is Feminism run a muck, and it will continue its march toward Tyranny until a balance is found.

      1. avatar ceefive says:

        These mothers are co conspirators of any murders which occur during these massacres . They could also be accessory before,during,and after the fact. There just might be grounds there for a law suit.

    2. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

      Her boss, Little Mike Bloomberg, has already said it would have been better to have waited for the cops.

      1. avatar Hilda says:

        I quess Bloomberg would prefer a blood bath. He would have been dancing if everyone in the church was killed.

      2. avatar nonya says:

        YEA
        &HOW MANY WOULD HAVE BEEN
        K I L L E D !!!
        BEFORE THE COPS
        GOT THERE
        IF NOT ALL OF THEM

  2. avatar LifeSavor says:

    It seems she is saying:

    ‘Bad guys have guns because good guys are allowed to have guns’.

    ‘If you must defend yourself, you are not free’.

    I am having some trouble with both those propositions.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Freedom is slavery. The rest of the book about covers the mindset needed for it to make sense.

    2. avatar Retrocon says:

      Their idea of freedom is the “protection” of a nanny state… Cuba, Soviet Union, China.

      They abandon their REAL freedoms in favor of an ARTIFICIAL sense of security.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        I recently saw an interesting YouTube video about how China is lying about its crime rate. Like all socialist/communist governments, they lie to their people, lie to the media (both to present a good image), officials lie to their superiors and subordinates (to keep the official view), and they lie to themselves to hide from reality.

        And this is the future?

    3. avatar Chuckers says:

      Bad guys have guns so they can impose their will on good guys. Good guys with guns can tell them to get lost and mean it.

    4. avatar Southern Cross says:

      To Shannon, being a victim, or more precisely other little people being victims, gives her moral authority. More victims equals more moral authority.

      She can’t imagine a world without evil. Evil exists in the hearts of people for greed or envy of what other people have and they have not. She wants to the world to be as she wishes. Those of us who don’t have their heads in the skies and their feet firmly on the ground know evil exists and proactive prevention is the better option.

      1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

        No, Miz Watts is a professional P.R. flack. She says and does whatever her employer, Michael Bloomberg, requires of her. She has no beliefs.

  3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Shannon sure looks better when you step back a few feet.

    1. avatar Ironhead says:

      Good from far, far from good.

    2. avatar OBOB says:

      Yep a few feet well into TWO states over!

      I’d like to make her look a little more attractive, how far can you pull back?
      Cameraman: How do you feel about Cleveland?

      1. avatar Michael says:

        Or ChiThugo AKA ChIRAQ,IL etc.etc. She makes me see double looking at her psychosis eyes.

      2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        As much as I’d like her to stay the hell away from my state, I’m thinking she’d look pretty good from across the street. Of course as soon as she opened her mouth it would ruin it even at that range. She needs a more photogenic stand in for those close up shots though.

    3. avatar Southern Cross says:

      If she wants to help the victims, why doesn’t she share her bounties in the slums of Chicago? Or isn’t not even PMCs could provide enough protection for that location without air and artillery support?

    4. avatar 55RTE says:

      I was gonna ask who’s the muppet in the picture?

      1. avatar Ross says:

        She has look on her face like she’s jumped on a bicycle with a seat removed and she’s trying to figure out just how she feels about it .

    5. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Just a Fugly Commie pearl clutcher.

  4. avatar possum, and the "Coons of Doom" says:

    Mom’s demand action. Yup , they sure do.

    1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      Possum, coons of doom is not politically correct. You have to say “masked small mammal-Americans of doom” now.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Why do they have to wear masks? What are they hiding?

        1. avatar OBOB says:

          They joined ANTIFA?

        2. avatar jwm says:

          antifa wears the SS deaths head mask in keeping with their fascist mindset.

      2. avatar Kenneth Phillips says:

        Fuck politically correct! I don’t give a dam about that crap! If someone is shooting at me, I want to be able to shoot back!

      3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “Possum, coons of doom is not politically correct. You have to say “masked small mammal-Americans of doom” now.”

        United Marsupials of Doom, perhaps?

        1. avatar JR Pollock says:

          Trash Pandas of Doom

        2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          The rabid peril

  5. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    Refresh my memory, how many guns were used in the stabbings at the Rabbi’s house over the weekend? Seems to indicate that even if there were no guns bad people would do bad things.

    1. avatar GomeznSA says:

      TCP – in their ‘whirled’ – it is NEVER about the tool use, well unless of course it is one of them ‘evil’ guns.
      it is never about the evil person. Period. And especially if they can (and always do) blame the inanimate object the evil person used.

    2. avatar Vinny says:

      NYC the knife free zone

    3. avatar Southern Cross says:

      And how do you stab people with a machete? The tip is normally rounded for slashing cuts. A gladius would be better for stabbing.

      1. avatar KenW says:

        Lots of different styles of machetes. Some of which I did not realize were machetes.
        https://knife-depot.com/pages/machete-buying-guide

  6. avatar AndyinMA says:

    I just wish a liberal would explain how a “gun free zone” sign will deter a murderous lunatic. I’m really willing to listen because I cannot understand it at all.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      AndyinMA,

      Committed gun-grabbers freely admit that a “no guns” sign has zero effect on a spree killer. Thus, they do not justify “gun-free” zones that way.

      Instead, gun-grabbers justify “gun-free” zones:

      (1) Lawful people will leave their firearms at home or in their cars. Thus, when those lawful people throw a temper-tantrum over an insult and would have shot someone in a fit of rage, in actuality they will not shoot their tormentor because their gun is in their car or at home. (Of course gun-grabbers cannot reconcile how someone who is conscientious enough to follow the law and leave their guns in their cars is callous enough to violate the law and shoot a tormentor over an insult.)

      (2) During an attack in a crowded venue, lawful armed defenders will spray bullets in wild fashion and increase the casualty count versus being unarmed and allowing a spree killer to operate with impunity. (Of course gun-grabbers cannot reconcile how lawful armed defenders have demonstrated time-and-time-again that they do not spray bullets and they do stop spree killers.)

      (3) Even if lawful armed defenders will never shoot a tormentor over an insult, never spray bullets and harm bystanders, and always incapacitate a spree killer quickly and vastly reduce the casualty count, being armed to defend ourselves and having shootouts in public are “icky” and we should reject both on “principle” — because it truly is superior to be robbed, beaten, raped, and/or murdered than to use “icky” force to defend ourselves.

      1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        You summed it up quite well. They know they’re wrong criticizing “A good guy with a gun”. So, they have to make up stuff like: “Everybody will be shot in all directions when the good guy starts shooting”.

      2. avatar LifeSavor says:

        U_C,

        Nice summary.

        “Icky” is a powerful argument. It makes us realize the conversation was over before it started.

        LOL!!

      3. avatar PM in Fl. says:

        I think the confusion in No2 is that… law enforcement officials in large northern cities will spray bullets all over the place. They have shown this proclivity in the past, spray and pray…fast re-load and repeat followed by a New York re-load with a “drop” gun.

    2. avatar Bill Wylde says:

      You don’t hear anything because you are truly listening. Their followers are used to being told what to do. There is a subtle, but important difference.

  7. avatar MarkPA says:

    I find the proposition (of the old Texas law) bizzare.

    If any religious community decides – of its own free will – to arm its members (or any subset of them) for the purpose of self-defense while worshiping, what business is it of government to deny them that right?

    The natural right of self-defense is presumed by the 2A.
    The right of religious worship is explicitly guaranteed by the 1A.

    Any member of any such religious community scrupulous about her congregation’s decisions about group security is free to leave and join some other congregation.

    The old Texas law (baring bearing arms in a religious service) seems designed to allow any individual – or group – to attack members of a religion that they object to.

    1. avatar Bill Wylde says:

      I’m also curious about what would happen if I decide, let’s say, that my house is a church and I don’t let people have guns here because it’s a church. Would someone make me prove it’s an “approved church”? That stumbles into another amendment that prohibits government laws about what I choose to do, or choose not to do.

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        If it is your house, it is up to you whether or not you want to allow guns(or drinking/drugs, loose women, etc.). You do not need a church to deny this behavior.

        There are many people that I do not want around me, armed or otherwise. If I choose to have a gun free zone in my house, that is my right. It could prove to be a stupid move, but it is your right…..

      2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        You will have to go before the zoning board. If approved you don’t have to pay property taxes anymore. Your neighbors might disapprove. Parking may be a problem.

      3. avatar Retrocon says:

        I’m personally thinking another way…

        I’ll start the “Church of the Devine Defense.”

        The precept being, our religion demands that we all carry concealed firearms everywhere we go.

        Then we argue our first amendment Rights are violated by gun free zones.

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          Would that be Andy Devine? He had supporting roles in a lot of oaters, but I never saw anything about how he felt about guns or self-defense.

        2. avatar Flatula says:

          This is a fantastic idea. Intentionally or not, it’s modeled on the Sikh and their ceremonial daggers. They are allowed to carry their kirpans almost everywhere – even federal buildings and schools. If my religion REQUIRES me to carry a firearm, then established Sikh-related legislation and case law says I get to do it. Period.

          Please, start this church! I will be a willing parishioner!

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      Mark, I don’t think it mattered.

      The good people kept concealed what needed to be concealed, and went about their worship anyways…

  8. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Of course the biddy had to be against anything that is positive in the world.
    Just proved that as usual were and are always wrong.
    The sky still hasn’t fallen yet.
    They have no place here being given any publicity good or bad here.
    TTAG should just ignore the million biddy nobodies’ and not give them any publicity here at all.

    1. avatar Rusty - Always Carry - Chains says:

      Their paying membership is much closer to the square root of a million.

    2. avatar Sigiloso says:

      Ignoring them and letting them go about their business is why they’re making grounds and getting laws passed that not only turn us into criminals, but also can make more people victims. They are poison and must be challenged

  9. avatar Rusty - Always Carry - Chains says:

    Moms Demand and all that air headed bunch of useless astroturfing, Bloomberg worshipping, nitwits haven’t the brains to differentiate logic from their own wishful thinking.

  10. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

    They (the anti-gun media and lobby) will drop this one quickly.
    The fact is we have knows the Leftist, Progressive Disarmament Media has a formula event it reports on: Misogynistic white guy massacres defenseless innocents with an A-15 “assault weapon” and is eventually stopped by police.

    Three days have passed.The story is off Drudge and the Google News front page. There will be no MSNBC church security broadcast. Jack Wilson won’t be on the View and have 21 credits on IMDB, but, I pray few more Americans have woken up to the need to take charge of their own safety.

    •Edit•Reply•Share ›

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    … the Texas law that allowed Jack Wilson and other parishioners to defend themselves in their church.

    For the love of all that is good and decent, STOP using Progressive language.

    The proposed Texas law did NOT “allow” people to defend themselves in church. Rather, the proposed Texas law stopped criminalizing people for exercising their inalienable right of self-defense.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      So true. This should read, ‘the law decriminalizing self defense in a place of worship.’

    2. avatar enuf says:

      Or, this language could have worked better too:

      “The Texas law that restored and reaffirmed the right of citizens to defend themselves in a house of worship …”

    3. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Right!

  12. avatar Prndll says:

    Well….
    Gun lobbyists are not writing our gun laws.

  13. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Demanding Commie moms being part of the civilian disarmament complex do not care about lives they only care about the complete civilian disarmament agenda.

  14. avatar Ralph says:

    Bloombag can have all the armed security he wants. You can’t. Got it now?

  15. avatar BootsOnGround says:

    These Moms have not found themselves in s dire situation like the one at the church in Texas. If they ever do, which I pray they don’t, they will thank almighty God and the good citizen with a concealed carry weapon willing to stand up to a killer and potentially sacrifice himself to save their lives and their families’ lives. I know for a fact that every church member in that church in Texas is grateful to the private citizen who took out the killer and saved their lives.

    1. avatar Hush says:

      Boots said, ” they will thank almighty God and the good citizen with a concealed carry weapon willing to stand up to a killer and potentially sacrifice himself to save their lives and their families’ lives.”
      Thanking God and the armed citizen is what one would hope they would do; but, I am not so sure that they would be more interested in pursuing the legality of the armed citizen. I think they would want arrested the hand that saved them for any foolish reason they could dream up. There is a name for moms who will sacrifice you and your family while ignoring readily available means of protection.
      The very fact that they would attack the newly passed Texas law speaks volumes relative to their mindset and worldview pertaining to self protection. It has been said many times on TTAG: gun free zones serve as shooting ranges, knife ranges etc for the bad guys. Consider: They feel safe so you must be safe too(without guns), they probably do not go to church so they have no concern for what happens at any worship service.
      Bottom line, the new law in Texas that amplified a citizen’s right to self protection allowed to happen what they believe could/would not happen and the end results at the Church of Christ in Texas is counter to their agenda which forced them to alter their attack on guns to the changed law while totally ignoring the good that came from the action taken and the lives, pain and suffering SAVED.

    2. avatar Wiregrass says:

      I’m not too sure that would change their minds. More likely she would double down and exploit the situation like what happened in Giffords shooting. It’s no surprise these people react to this the way they have, they have other fall back position to go on.

  16. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    WHY do I never see them marching against gangs? Is it because they are afraid the gangs will retaliate? And why are they always marching against the good guys with guns? Are they communist financed? or by exNazis?

    1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      Because gangs are a protected organization of the democrat (communist) party USA.
      They have a right to make a living too don’t they?

      To paraphrase Jack Wilson: “evil is everywhere, be prepared where ever you go.”

  17. avatar Beth O’Rourke says:

    That’s the thing with democrats – they only feel safe when people around them are slaves.

  18. A lot of them were from the Austin area. Lots of liberals and snow flakes in that area.

  19. avatar Cloud says:

    Ugh, that mug. Nightmarish.

  20. avatar Kyle says:

    I find that anything bloomberg or MDA is in favor of, I’m opposed too.

    If they advocated for a law against Pedophilia I’d have to rethink my stance on the subject…just say’n

  21. avatar JEFF HUDON says:

    just look at the face of the woman in the picture – looks like an idiot gofer faced know nothing.

  22. avatar former water walker says:

    Man I miss Dirk Diggler!😅😎😏

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      You got that right!

      Dr. Diggler adored that goofy-eyed bimbo.

      Something about wanting to give her a personalized ‘pearl necklace’… *snicker* 😉

  23. avatar Woody says:

    I havn’t met one of them , I havn’t touched their lives in any way …. Why is everyone so HELLBENT on controlling MINE ??

    1. avatar Xavier says:

      *Laughing* that’s what women do, it’s deep in their DNA.

  24. avatar DON says:

    to bad Crazy Uncle Joe ,wasn’t there!! He would have run out side fired 2 shots in the air!!
    That would have put a STOP ,to all the KILLING !!!!

    1. avatar Robert Messmer says:

      Quote: “to bad Crazy Uncle Joe ,wasn’t there!! He would have run out side fired 2 shots in the air!!” Then he would have come back inside and compared shotguns with the killer. Gropey Joe also bad mouthed the law when it was being passed.

  25. avatar Craig in IA says:

    “Moms Demand Action Lobbied Against Law That Saved Lives in Texas Church Shooting”
    Why does this surprise anyone who is in the battle to preserve and improve our Second Amendment? Body counts are what gun ban groups relish- the more the better. Bodies of victims, though, not dead predators and whack jpbs. Just refuse to go along with any assumption from people who are dedicated in changing your liberties to fit their own distorted view of America. Onward and upward- let Bloomberg spend all his money on this crap- it isn’t working in the long run.

  26. avatar GS650G says:

    I doubt Shannon goes.to church or believes in God even. The left has little use for religion and considers faith a waste of time. And when religion contradicts them they are openly hostile towards it.
    Fortunately we still respect religion just not at the government level.

  27. avatar Firing pin says:

    That woman’s picture should be over the definition of a snowflake in the dictionary

  28. avatar GomeznSA says:

    A couple of things – the law took effect THREE full months before this incident so apparently it wasn’t that big of an issue for them – until it actually worked as intended.
    Where were all of these demanding moms back in the dark ages (some 40 years ago) when the ‘moonies’ had heavily armed guards protecting their ‘religious’ compound in Antelope, OR? Or any of the similarly armed guards in moslem ‘religious’ compounds today for that matter…………..

  29. avatar Dan says:

    Parents just don’t understand.

  30. avatar marinedoc says:

    I would like to know what her honest answer would be to not having armed, trained members of the church in the congregation if she had been there and her life was saved by one of these members. Would she have preferred to have been shot and/or witnessed many others being shot with no one present to stop the threat only until he had run out of bullets.? Could she have honestly stated that she would have rather been shot than having armed members present to save her life? Or members of her family.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      marinedoc,

      Would she have preferred to have been shot and/or witnessed many others being shot with no one present to stop the threat only until he had run out of bullets.?

      Yes, that is exactly what she wants because that is “virtuous” in her mind. According to her ilk, it really is morally superior to be robbed, beaten, raped, and/or murdered than to “stoop to the level of violent attackers and possess firearms”.

  31. avatar Chief Censor says:

    Socialists want you to “call the police” when things happen. Don’t fight back. Just call the police. Do not resist the criminal, give them what they want. Only the police have the right to fight.

  32. avatar Frank says:

    Somebody throw that dog a bone!

  33. avatar Hannibal says:

    “armed (people) aren’t freedom, they’re the cost of (guns).”

    Okay, while I would quibble with the first part, as long as you leave me in peace to do the second, I’d be fine.

  34. avatar sound awake says:

    when democrats/liberals/progressives arent straight up lying about something theyre just plain wrong about it

  35. avatar Jimmy says:

    Let’s at least be consistent. The “law” didn’t save any lives; an armed parishioner did. This site is constantly admonishing politicians, Bloomberg, and Everytown for Bullshit that “laws do not save lives” and yet here we are, posting a headline making that exact claim. FFS!

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      i disagree. A law allowing carry meant the individuals could be armed and act without being arrested and convicted. Laws explicitly banning guns in churches go one step further in publicly declaring these buildings victim zones.
      The absence of a law one way or the other is another matter but in most cases it is either permitted by law or banned by law.
      unfortunately criminals don’t give a shit either way.

  36. avatar Devils in baggy pants says:

    Once again, Liberalism is proven to be a mental illness. Some sheep prefer to be eaten by wolves than to be protected by sheepdogs. Weird!!!

  37. avatar Mom's Demand an End to the 2ndA says:

    That statement from Ms nanoWatts is yet more evidence that Everytown is not about common sense measures. How can you get your PR team to write spin like that…when the most positive result came from a otherwise godawful situation? It’s really sick. But it’s not hard to understand when you realize everything they do is a means to an end…repeal of the 2nd A.

  38. avatar GS650G says:

    why do all pictures of her appear to be through a fish eye lens?

  39. avatar Howard says:

    Shooting Statistics

    Years ago, when I was deciding if I should carry or not, I did a bit of research into the statistics of mass shootings. What stood out most was the fact that the body count was always lower if a good guy with a gun could intervene. And the duration of the event was shorter.

    This shooting in White Settlement is the same. Fewer people died, and the ordeal was over very quickly.

    Pulse Nightclub : 50 dead, duration 3 hours

    New Zealand Mosque Shooting: 51 dead, duration 15 minutes +

    White Settlement Church Shooting: 3 dead, duration 6 seconds

  40. avatar nonya says:

    WITHOUT FIRE ARMS
    & THE RIGHT TO DEFEND OUR SELVES
    THERE WILL BE NO !!! FUTURE
    OR FUTURE GENERATIONS
    TO DEFEND

  41. avatar Nancy McPherson says:

    There are only 2 ways to get someone to do something–persuasion or force. When the other person is armed, force is not an option, so persuasion is the only choice.

  42. avatar JON DOUGH says:

    YOU JUST CAN’T FIX STUPID!!

  43. avatar ceefive says:

    These “people” continue to prove just how separated they are from reality. Poor things.

  44. avatar Jim Gregori says:

    Let’s put a “GUN FREE ZONE” sign outside her house, lit up 24 hours a day… and see what happens next. Also, see if she locks her car doors at night as well.

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