Home » Blogs » Quote of the Day: Moms Demand Guns for Illegal Mayors Edition

Quote of the Day: Moms Demand Guns for Illegal Mayors Edition

Robert Farago - comments No comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxYDIXgyzAU

“Pro-gun activists are worried about losing their guns and moms are worried about losing their children. You tell me who’s going to win.” – Shannon Watts, Founder, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America quoted in The new leaders on gun safety in 2013? Moms [via msnbc.com]

Photo of author

Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the former publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

0 thoughts on “Quote of the Day: Moms Demand Guns for Illegal Mayors Edition”

  1. Ya we support the 2nd Amendment BUT….we don’t want to but are forced to it’s a Right (damn it) but we will still deny you cause only police and gangs should have guns cause we said so but we respect your privledge I mean Rights (not) and we will do everything in our power to keep
    you from carrying or even having a gun if elected sheriff!

    Reply
  2. Here’s my short history of carry guns, starting with when I was discharged from the military.

    9mm IWI Baby Eagle – Because I hadn’t figured out how civilian carry was going to work. Great gun, ergonomics are perfect for me, all steel, never jams, low recoil, quite accurate. Weighs approximately as much as Ohio, left a dent in my hipbone when I tried to carry it all day.

    Rethought things.

    .38 +P S&W 646 Airweight in a Desantis hip holster. Ugly, two finger grip, kicks like a mule under full power loads, and I wouldn’t shoot it any farther than I could throw it. But I can forget that it’s on. I can carry it every day, under a T-shirt if necessary. It’s reliable, there are only two controls – the cylinder release and the trigger. Point and click. Trigger job to tame the insane factory trigger. Practice a lot. The perfect carry gun. Small, limited capacity, bad accuracy, uncomfortable to shoot. Very comfortable to carry. Oh, and all things considered, cheaper than anything else that would come close. ~$320, plus another 70 for the holster pulls in at less than $400.

    I carried the first gun for a week. The second I bought eight years ago, and I’ve never once thought about changing.

    Reply
  3. Interesting offering for the civilian market. Hard to understand why they did not offer a M4 version with a rail system. Perhaps they are going after the civilian market that want as close to the “real thing” as possible?

    The more the merrier, I say.

    I’m pretty content with my Daniel Defense M4 V1 and my HK MR556A1 and my TAVOR SAR so don’t have a hankering for another 5.56 in the safe.

    Reply
  4. When it comes to Gay Marriage the libs like to say ” well if your against it don’t marry a gay person”.

    So we need to tell these same libs “well if you don’t like guns, don’t buy a gun!”

    Reply
  5. I’m worried about losing the right to defend myself, my wife, and my children. I know responsibility is a dirty word to Ms Watts, but I take my responsibility for my family’s safety more seriously than she does hers. I don’t want my wife’s life changed forever because some thug decided she is a great target for the knockout game.

    Reply
  6. The reason they wont be made anywhere near where the government rifles are made is because when you are awarded a military contract to produce rifles, you cannot sell rifles to the public that are made out of the same materials, on the same machines, or from the same specs. These wont be anywhere near the quality of a gov’t made rifle.

    Reply
  7. Last time I read that much prejudiced gun snob POV dribble was about a Hi Point 995 I built up with $700 worth of accessories and paint. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that. If the gun runs reliably and has the feature set required by the operator I think it’s a winner.

    Reply
  8. I kind of get the sense she’s ready to build a human catapult and start slinging people into the side of the NRA building.

    Reply
    • MAIGs beware! The NRA long ago acquired the cow trebuchet featured in “Monty Python and The Holy Grail” & is prepared to reply in kind if the headquarters building is attacked by human siege engines.

      Reply
  9. Parents banned rubber band guns when were kids. Would find them in our rooms and take them away. We would just make more out of popcycle sticks and wooden clothes line pins.

    We even played with them at recess on the playground at Catholic grade school we attended. Nuns would yell “you are going to put someone’s eye out with that” Never did, we were smart enough to never aim for the head (unwritten rule) We were all tanned skinny kids from chasing each other, back then!

    Reply
  10. At 2:26, SW says “we have a mass shooting every day”! WTF?

    Maybe she is a physicist. Since bullets have mass, some mass is shot every day.

    Reply
  11. She is only in it for her “Sugar Daddy’s” money. I wonder how she feels knowing that Bloomburg owns her lock stock and barrel? I wonder how her husband feels?

    Reply
  12. While I’m interested to see these FN products in the wild hasn’t Palmetto State Army been selling some of their rifles with FN barrels and third party full auto BCGs for years? I always assumed the barrel and BCG were the heart and soul of an AR.

    The PSA rifles that I’ve handled in the past all seemed to function very well, especially given the price.

    Reply
  13. She says that as if pro-gun activists and moms are mutually exclusive. 100% of the moms in my family ARE pro-gun.

    Go away and take your dishonest, control-mongering, anti-constitutional, elitist, no-integrity, end-justifies-means, irrational paranoia with you.

    Reply
  14. Wow, that’s a poor comparison. How about this; they want to take away our guns (and rights) because they’re fearful, we want to take away their kids because they’re poor parents. It’s not true but at least it’s equal. Maybe if we actually did try to take away their kids they’d understand where we’re coming from and why we will do whatever it takes to continue to win.

    Reply
    • Speak for yourself Fred, I don’t want anything to do with her spoiled rotten, self-entitled, progressive brain-washed kids. She can have them.

      But that’s the difference I guess between her kind and mine. She wants access to my kids to further spread her liberal ideology, but won’t allow her own to hear my side. Ever. She’s teaching her kids not to listen and consider their philosophies to be superior, in all ways. Whereas I am teaching mine to listen, think critically and weigh all sides equally, no matter how stupid. Unfortunately, in this day and age, it seems like the masses just want someone to do their thinking for them. SW and her disciples are exceedingly good at stepping up and doing just that. Which is why, no matter what, she remains and will likely always remain relevant.

      Reply
      • Oh, no, no, no , no. We want all things to be equal so we wouldn’t take and raise their children, the state would take them and decide what to do with them later. In the long run that’s all part of their glorious utopia anyway, it’s just a few steps down the road. In this case I wouldn’t condone completely equal actions, I am anti-run-kids-over-with-a-steamroller, and anti-melt-children-into-bricks.

        I was taught with the understanding that I made my own decisions and my parents would support me so I needed to think for myself. Today it seems kids are never allowed to touch the stove to learn it’s hot, fall down in rubber-cushioned play pens, and generally are coddled as much as possible. Must be terrible in a world where everything is evil and unspeakable.

        Reply
  15. Anybody thinks californians are anti gun ought to be in the east bay at midnight on New Years eve. 10 round mag limits and nfa rules apparently don’t apply here.

    Reply
  16. The day is coming that we may all need and want to wear some type of body armor, not only as protection from those who would do us harm, but from those sworn to protect…

    Reply
  17. How can it be a “secret compartment” if the trooper noticed it from a simple visual inspection?

    These words, I don’t think they mean what they think they mean.

    Reply
  18. In response to her question, “I’m worried about losing both.”

    1. “Gun Free Zones” are target rich environments for those with mental health problems that are hell-bent on killing anyone for any un-related reason. The want their 15 minutes of fame; dead or alive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Those that create “Gun Free Zones” have both a moral and legal responsibility to ensure those “Gun Free Zones” are secure from those “Individuals” that want to kill anyone for any reason.

    2. Once the 2nd amendment is nullified and our guns are confiscated there will be nothing left to protect the 1st amendment. Once the 1st amendment is nullified we will be controlled by tyrannical dictators and will descend into anarchy.

    Unfortunately, Shannon Watts and the “Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America” are only looking at today instead of the future. Remember, she and her organization are the creators and proponents of “Gun Free Zones” when they convince a shop owner to make their area a “Gun Free Zone”. She forgets that she has not provided any security for those Zones. She just walks away taking all of the credit while leaving the shop owner to take all of the liability. Therefore, she and her organization should be held liable for any vial actions taken against anyone within those Zones.

    If I were a lawyer I would start a “Class Action” lawsuit against her and her organization for creating a “Target Rich Environment” without any security. Relying on LLEOs to arrive within 3 – 12 minutes is not enough.

    Reply
  19. I wish Shannon spent half as much time actually being a mother as she does being the civilian disarmament movement’s main b!itch.

    In a few years, I suspect her kids will be wishing the same thing.

    Reply
  20. They have as much right to be there as you do ,Starbucks or anywhere else they want to be that is legally allowed by law.Starbucks will not do anything if you carry there,Personnally I never liked their basic coffee or their overpriced hot chocolate.
    You may not like the Constitution ,but it’s the Constitution ,
    Since you know zip about firearms ,NO ONE respects you as you are uneducated on the topic you campaign against.I ,for one,wouldn’t want a lawyer defending me who has not been to law school.Show us your credentials on firearms,or your degree in criminology or something other than’I don’t like’ to give us a basis of respect for someone who knows NOTHING about the Law, The Constitution ,our history regarding firearms,The Tyranny NAZI Germany imposed on it’s people started by gun registration ( which is where you are headed). Something?Yah that’s what I thought
    I know,let’s ask the Holocost survivors what they think of your
    plans and see if they think The ‘Moms Demand Action’ in1939 Germany had an affect on Hitler as he would gladly agree with your organization.No mass shootings there,Ya know come to think of it the Nazi’s had great gun control idea’s and look how we’ll it worked for them!
    So now that we’re done with that topic,let’s talk Nuclear Science as I know nothing about it and I would just love to give you my opinion ,is that OK?

    Reply
  21. While this case involves the legality of concealed secret compartments in a vehicle and the officer’s observations regarding the scent of marijuana, the video specifically references mounting weapons in a vehicle, not necessarily “concealing” it.

    Regardless, I believe Ohio law requires the legal concealed carry of a weapon on one’s person while in a vehicle.

    Reply
  22. My belt has a secret compartment on it for storing spare cash, would it be illegal to wear this belt while driving or riding in a car in Ohio?

    Reply
  23. In my truck, between the seats, butt up.
    In the land rover, the door pocket.
    Still looking for a decent cross draw holster that isn’t impeded by the seat belt.

    Reply
  24. The 1986 FBI shootout with Platt and Maddox provided a valuable lesson for vehicle carry. Unless the weapon is secured on your person, it may become inaccessible in the event of a crash.

    Reply
  25. Appendix carry, leave it on my body to protect it against it flying all over they place in the event of a crash. Also very easy to draw while seated.

    Reply
  26. These moms that are worried about guns seem to be the type that would be worrying about drugs. How’s that whole drug war thing working out for us? I’ve even seen accounts of the D.A.R.E. program turning on kids to drugs because they have received more information about the effects of them and this made them not only more curious but less likely to accidentally overdose.

    Reply
  27. Nice work Nick. This kind of open and fact based analysis is sadly too uncommon in the MSM and much of social media and to some extent also in the gun biz. So thats why I keep coming back to TTAG.

    That and the unique take on the culture and the ever evolving commentary from the POTG.

    I suspect some of that traffic is coming from both the competition snd the opposition.

    Reply
  28. OWB holster at about 3 o’clock. Works OK for the ol’ bucket seat. It improved when I went from a full size to a compact CZ-75; a good trade, two rounds less in the gun (no effect on the second mag) for less jabbing by the muzzle, especially on those odd occasions where I do IWB.

    Reply
  29. well done, and Happy New Year.

    Mothers and Mayors Against Guns did not make the list. Yay. Speaking of which, there are more TTAG readers than “members” of MMAG. cool.

    “Lost productivity”? nah, Next to the gun reviews and the ammo reviews, most helpful tip of 2013 IMO was https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/robert-farago/gunbot-near-realtime-tracking-of-in-stock-ammo/

    An independent expert opinion on guns and ammo before I drop a lot of dimes is always worth 5:28 minutes of time because it saves even more than 5:28 later.

    Reply
  30. “applies only to a subset of firearms with characteristics New York State has determined to be particularly dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense;”

    This kind of logic completely ignores the central purpose of the Second Amendment – to allow the people a means of defense against governmental tyranny. Granted an MSR is not USUALLY necessary for self defense against criminal thugs, but it is vital for defense against an organized military. As far as being dangerous, the stats clearly show that handguns are far more dangerous than rifles, yet limiting capacity to 7 rounds (as opposed to 10?) is deemed unconstitutional. The most deadly mass shooting in US history was perpetrated with 10 round magazines. So why is the left so eager to abolish the MSR? Because it poses a serious threat (danger) to minority rule. The government interprets it’s own constitution based not on what protections the constitution bestows on the common citizen, but on what they deem necessary for the preservation of their own corrupt positions.

    Reply
    • It is significant that knowledge of the AR rifle/carbine design, the layout of its controls, its manual of arms, it maintenance procedures, its skilled use, is the legacy of every man and woman who has served in the US military over the last 50 years. Though the AR is semi-auto only, the skills are undiminished by that fact.

      It cannot be accidental that the political left focuses its confiscation efforts on this firearm, though it is not the most powerful available to the citizen. As a government of supposedly “limited powers” proceeds to take over the 17% of GDP that is healthcare, as the Senate guts the 60% rule for Presidential appointments, as courts (not plebiscites) impose our duty to provide tax and social-security step-up benefits to homosexual ‘marriages,’….as these and more occur, the corporate-and-left coalition does not want the arms with which veterans trained to be in veterans’ hands.

      “Thank you for your service!”

      I laugh each time I read another progressive’s emphatic assertion that skill with a simple semi-auto small arm cannot possibly enable effective defense against civil disorder or tyranny. Think. Since AR’s are almost never used in crime, why then confiscate them? If, as they say, such items are useless in resisting obvious abuse of power, there is no reason to confiscate them. The truth, however, is that such confiscation does not have crime-reduction in mind, but rather has the goal of eliminating the means of constitutional defense that they argue, out of the other side of their mouths “could only work in fantasy.”

      Reply
  31. Yet again, the Clown Militia bending over backwards to help the gun control movement.

    Folks: If you EVER think it’s a good idea to go to a restaurant with a bunch of rifles, do the rest of us a favor and go back to playing Dungeons and Dragons or Chutes and Ladders or whatever else it is that you idiots do. You’re not doing anyone any favors.

    Urban Dictionary nails it:
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=clown+militia

    Reply
  32. That has to be the most bipolar legal ruling I have ever read. So AR-15’s are in common use but ban them anyway? Talk about spineless.

    Reply
  33. There are a few good parts of the decision

    Firstly, the court holds that so called “assault weapons” are indeed in common use, and that under a strict scrutiny interpretation, a ban would be unconstitutional. However, the court attempts to apply a lower standard of scrutiny to the law, drawing some sketchy parallels with first amendment scrutiny standards.

    Of more immediate importance, the hilariously mispelled “muzzle break” portion of the law has been struck down. My M1A Scout is no longer an assault weapon! While the legislature may have intended to ban muzzle brakes, they instead banned the homophone “muzzle breaks”. While NY state wanted to judge to simply read legislative intent into the statute, the judge refused to expand the statute to cover intent, and struck “muzzle break” section.

    From page 48 of the decision.

    “When properly attached to a firearm, a muzzle brake reduces recoil. The SAFE Act, however, regulates muzzle “breaks.” See N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(22)(a)(vi)”

    “the word “break” has its own meaning, distinct from its homophone “brake.” And there is no dispute that there is no accepted meaning to the term “muzzle break.” Both sides agree that it is, quite simply, meaningless. Consequently, an ordinary person cannot be “informed as to what the State commands or forbids.” See Cunney, 660F.3d at 620. All references to muzzle “break” must therefore be stricken.

    Reply
  34. The only reason it’s been a long, winding road is because you haven’t carried a Sig Sauer. One range day with a Sig tends to make up a person’s mind, quickly.

    Reply
  35. A lot of good comments here, and all of them piece together my exact sentiments. Not to mention the article itself.

    While I would ordinarily say, “Fuck ’em”, and let their influence die like the passing fad that it ultimately will be, there are organizations and personalities will deep pockets and broad audiences that will milk that fad for every penny that it’s worth.

    Groups like these, especially those will the backing of the aforementioned deep pockets (who shall remain nameless and shamed for this post) to keep them running even after their decidedly momentary popularity has effectively, fully petered out… not that they had much to start with. They will remain a thorn in sides of not just us, but every American literally until their financiers finally die of old age. Even then, as P.T. Barnum once said, “There’s a sucker born every minute”. They will always find some naive, wet-behind-the-ears sycophant with zero knowledge of the real world to donate — unquestioningly mind you and thanks only to their own willful ignorance and false sense of intellectual superiority — to their so-called “cause”.

    We need to keep “sniping” at MDA. We must fight them in the blogs. We must fight them in the “news” sites. Must must fight them in the YouTube comments. We must fight them in the social media. We must never surrender, for our cause is the one that’s right and Just. We must make our mark in every place that we can, whenever we can, and with as much force as we can; in every opinion poll, election, and public forum (that actually allows differences of opinion).

    They’ve already declared that they won’t rest until they’ve disarmed us, and don’t let them or any of their sycophantic stooges fool you: that is absolutely their ultimate goal regardless of whatever protestations they or anyone else on all of God’s green earth have to the contrary. It’s a war of attrition they want. It’s not debate. It’s not discussion. It’s capitulation, complete and total. It’s subservience. To them and their ideals. Integrity, morality, and justice be damned.

    We will not allow them to win.

    We cannot.

    Not just for us, not just for our families, but ironically enough for them and theirs as well. Hopefully before they are able to sacrifice them on the Altar to Stupidity so that they can use them as props for their sick, fascist delusions.

    They claim to play the “follow the money” game, too, when it comes to pro-rights groups like the NRA (with whom I have my own but totally different reservations). Well, let’s fight fire with fire. Follow the money trail for MDA, before and after billionaire-sugar-daddy-rescue. Follow the internet traffic. Publish the fact that they have no real contributing members. Publish the fact that they have no real interest from the vast audience of the internet. Publish the fact that their floundering required the help of a third-party — despite the fact that Shannon Watts is a millionaire herself.

    Expose them for the frauds that they very well know they are. Put together a fact sheet, completely with relevant links and the lot, that we can copy-paste to every single “news” article, blog, YouTube video, and social media page where they are even so much as casually mentioned anywhere on the internet. Then we’ll flood the damned comments with it. Make a brief presentation of it that we can spread across the internet, seeding it on torrent sites if we have to to get the word out.

    If they will not tell the truth, then we will simply have to fucking choke them with it until we drown them out and they finally STFU.

    Reply
  36. MDA is bought and paid for by Bloomie. His callous disregard for our constitutional rights, his billions and his abuse of NYC resources don’t fly in real America. If you must mention MDA, do it with MAIG and Bloomberg in the same breath. Follow the money, always; expose MDA for the un-American fraud it is.

    Reply
  37. Yes, keep posting about them and about other organizations that are spreading lies in order to gain control. Of course most of us are outraged by these organizations, but it’s very important that we know what they are up to.

    Reply
  38. 1. Know your enemy’s thoughts, actions, strengths, and weaknesses.
    2. Keep the pressure on. Never let up.
    3. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
    4. Ridicule is the most effective weapon.
    5. Freeze, personalize, and polarize.

    These people are the enemy: they want us to submit to their commands. Our goals should be, in order of desirability:
    a. Persuade them to change to our side.
    b. Convince them to be neutral, if they won’t join us.
    c. Neutralize them, if they won’t be neutral on their own.
    d. Destroy their effectiveness and abilities if all else fails.
    Sometimes option (d) is the only available option.

    TTAG’s coverage of the anti-civil-rights groups MDA/MAIG helps with #1.

    Reply
  39. Man, that graphic would be far more effective and something I could agree with if only two teeny, tiny changes were made to it. Keep everything the same, but:

    1.) Change the heading’s wording to “One child is holding something that should be banned in America to protect them. Guess which one.”

    2.) Swap out the “Little Red Riding Hood” book and put a “No Guns Allowed” sign in that little girl’s hands.

    Reply
  40. So would he suspicious looking out of place talking loudly to no one if he didn’t have a gun?

    what if he had a Samuri Sword?

    I say yes.

    I think the cop should have explained better what the errativ behavior was that made him up his responce from just pulling up and talking with him to proning him out. Dash cam video would help too.
    I’ll reserve my judgement untill more details come out, like I did with GZ.

    Reply
  41. They (NRA) should just gather the MDA’s most recent and infamous illogical statements highlights and do a nice Colion Noir segment. Done.

    Reply
  42. CT is a high tax, high cost of living, low freedom state. Until people vote with their feet and move to better places, this will continue in the Northeast. The vote at the ballot box is no longer enough, it’s not working.

    Reply
  43. carrying any amount of guns is a persons own decision. i however don’t see the practicality of carrying much more than a semi auto iwb and a spare mag + a .38 snub nose on the ankle or in a pocket. if you need more than that, you better have an ak in your vehicle or close proximity.

    Reply
  44. I think I see the error, it SHOULD read: “My only comment would be that the anti-gun establishment and its mouthpiece organizations seem to be able to drum up fear endlessly even though, as time passes, none of the predictions on which they base their fear mongering come to pass. At what point will gun control advocates realize that they are being duped into artificially boosting gun sales for no valid reason?”

    Reply

Leave a Comment