Moms Demand Action: Or instant movement, just add crisis

[Mr Evilwrench]

Moms Demand (Hot) Action is astroturf (vs grassroots) from the ground up. It may suck in some supporters that can't see that for what it is, but they didn't just go from zero to whatever in a week; it's all staged with funding by bloominidiot. They may have a couple of administrator types lined up in some likely markets, but just how much of their funding and organizing comes from true believers kicking in where the agenda strikes a chord, and how many just sign up as useful idiots because it sounds like the thing to do if you take the propaganda at face value? Of course it's all emotion (mixed with deception) and we can't counter it with logic against them, but the ones we want to convince should be receptive to logic. If not, they're likely lost. Have to take what you can get. I still think it's good to ridicule them, point and laugh, and I do still want to make a parody site with pictures of chicks who are obviously moms looking for some, shall we say, enjoyment.

 

[ModernGunner]

Actually, I think it's VERY important and quite worthwhile to 'out' Shannon Troughton-Watts as the fraud she, apparently, is.
It's NOT that "just because you can't do doesn't mean someone else can't". That's liberal coon-fingering It should also be noted that the "What difference, at this point, does is make!?" rhetoric is EXACTLY what low-life Hillary Clinton said about Benghazi.

It's that it's impossible to do in (approximately) a week. Remember that SOME 'Tea Party'-type groups have STILL not gotten their 503(c)(4) approval 3-4 YEARS after applying. And Shannon got hers in a week +/-?. It's the IRS, and it's 'impossible' to get it in LESS than 6 months or so, regardless of whether your group is liberal or conservative.

This also means here 'coffee table group' is NOT as large as she's claimed, and they're defrauding good and decent women who actually ARE caring Moms into thinking they're just joining up with another 'caring Mom'. Obviously, Shannon ISN'T, because WHO is watching her kids when this 'stay-at-home, caring Mom' is spending countless hours per DAY putting this together 'spontanously'?

The whole MDA appears to be a fraud, and SHOULD be exposed as such. Getting people to join under fraudulent assertions is called 'fraud', and it just happens to be illegal. If her claims are fraudulent, then Indiana should prosecute her for it. As well as the IRS for her failure to file proper documentation.

Expose her at EVERY opportunity, and that would go a LONG way to silencing her rhetoric. Prosecute and jail her for fraud, and that would be a death knell, and Bloomberg would lose major $$$ AND ANY 'credibility'.

JMO.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You guys care. But the people we need to reach don't. And it's all association. You have no proof. I could not use that article to convince anyone who can run more than 2 brain cells together that gun control is wrong because this MDA lady was waiting for an opportunity to make a statement. It doesn't matter. What matters is that she is out there and we will not win this fight by trying to use conspiracy theories (be they right or wrong) to discredit her.

However, if you show this article to someone who is genuinely a fence sitter or anti-gun and they change their mind, I will be happy to reconsider. Otherwise, it's just more blah blah blah.

all this article serves to do is outrage gun owners.

WTF? Conspiracy theory and established, verifiable, unwavering facts are two entirely different things. You must have taken a drink of the evil kool-aid if you honestly believe anything unflattering constitutes 'conspiracy theory'.

Let us review: Conspiracy theory revolves around the way a given individual connects the dots which are available leading to a general inference and/or speculation about events or circumstances for which we do not have sufficient evidence available to prove or disprove.

The fraudulent nature of Ms. Watts, the artificial image she presents of herself, and the artificial image she presents of the group of which she stands as figurehead are provable facts with no conjecture whatsoever involved. Why is it that you think that exposing a fraud, a hypocrite, and a shameless mercenary as the liar she is does not help the cause of persuading people that she does not merit their support?

 

[24Carat]

https://www.facebook.com/thugswithjugs

 

[cop car]

emotion and feeling has ZERO place in any law

 

[ViperJock]

WTF? Conspiracy theory and established, verifiable, unwavering facts are two entirely different things. You must have taken a drink of the evil kool-aid if you honestly believe anything unflattering constitutes 'conspiracy theory'.

Let us review: Conspiracy theory revolves around the way a given individual connects the dots which are available leading to a general inference and/or speculation about events or circumstances for which we do not have sufficient evidence available to prove or disprove.

The fraudulent nature of Ms. Watts, the artificial image she presents of herself, and the artificial image she presents of the group of which she stands as figurehead are provable facts with no conjecture whatsoever involved. Why is it that you think that exposing a fraud, a hypocrite, and a shameless mercenary as the liar she is does not help the cause of persuading people that she does not merit their support?

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought we were referring to the article posted in the OP. I saw facts. They support the authors theory but they are far from conclusive. They are interpreted by a biased writer who appeals to those that already want to believe what he is saying. I'm not saying he isn't correct, I'm just saying its 1. Hardly an airtight case. 2. A conspiracy theory. --theory because it has NOT been proven. And 3. Irrelevant since her anti gun views transcend a single tragic event. Her views (and the views of other Anti 2A people are not based solely upon that event. Ergo even proof that she was planning to create MDA prior to Sandy Hook in order to further the Anti cause or even proof that she had a benefactor and mentor in the creation of MDA will do little to dissuade someone who agrees with her position. (Notice I didn't say "argument" ATM. Even though she does have one. An argument does not necessitate validity --Monty Python "I'd like to buy an Argument."

so yell at me. Ok. Fine. You win...as soon as you provide a list of people who have changed their minds as a result if this "evidence."

 

[TKpeterGunn]

Greetings ViperJock! I am Peter Gunn of Tavernkeepers and the author of this article. You do raise some interesting points and I thought I could provide some texture. First, I have tried on SEVERAL occasions to Allow MDA to refute my conclusions. They refuse to even do me the courtesy of a reply. If my theory is incorrect why would they not be the first ones to point it out? I have also cited the source of my information as their own facebook page and her LinkedIn. Anyone can duplicate what I have done and if there is an alternate explanation that fits I would be interested in hearing it and I would be happy to publish in on tavernkeepers.com. As all of us who support the cause are aware, the Anti Gun forces are constantly out there creating astroturf organizations and misrepresenting them, in addition to other hypocrisies and baldfaced lies. From where I sit, our stock in trade is the truth, not only about lawful gun ownership but in exposing the untruths the other side presents. You are quite correct that we are 'the choir' but if we do not 'sing' the fence sitters will not have the correct information and may be enticed to other side. If we allow the lies to make the headlines without challenge,our silence could be interpreted as agreement to them as fact. As far as countering MDA intelligently I certain agree. Since they avoid opposing views like the plague, it would seem the smart move would be to attempt to get them into a public debate and present this stuff, and the Jack in the Box BS and all their other claims and ask them to explain it. Since you folks are in her home state, who better than you? Their refusal should speak volumes. I certainly welcome your thoughts on what should be done. tkpetergunn@gmail.com By all means keep challenging and help us all stay sharp! -Peter

 

[IndyDave1776]

Greetings ViperJock! I am Peter Gunn of Tavernkeepers and the author of this article. You do raise some interesting points and I thought I could provide some texture. First, I have tried on SEVERAL occasions to Allow MDA to refute my conclusions. They refuse to even do me the courtesy of a reply. If my theory is incorrect why would they not be the first ones to point it out? I have also cited the source of my information as their own facebook page and her LinkedIn. Anyone can duplicate what I have done and if there is an alternate explanation that fits I would be interested in hearing it and I would be happy to publish in on tavernkeepers.com. As all of us who support the cause are aware, the Anti Gun forces are constantly out there creating astroturf organizations and misrepresenting them, in addition to other hypocrisies and baldfaced lies. From where I sit, our stock in trade is the truth, not only about lawful gun ownership but in exposing the untruths the other side presents. You are quite correct that we are 'the choir' but if we do not 'sing' the fence sitters will not have the correct information and may be enticed to other side. If we allow the lies to make the headlines without challenge,our silence could be interpreted as agreement to them as fact. As far as countering MDA intelligently I certain agree. Since they avoid opposing views like the plague, it would seem the smart move would be to attempt to get them into a public debate and present this stuff, and the Jack in the Box BS and all their other claims and ask them to explain it. Since you folks are in her home state, who better than you? Their refusal should speak volumes. I certainly welcome your thoughts on what should be done. tkpetergunn@gmail.com By all means keep challenging and help us all stay sharp! -Peter

Very well said. Those who are actively against us are immovable in their positions. No amount of reason is going to prevent that. Every election I have observed has demonstrated that the low information voter will be swayed by virulent attacks based on fear every time, no matter how far from reality those attacks are. I would like for our resident appeasers to explain again for me how they intend to to get different results from those achieved since 1934 through appeasement. That quote about insanity being the repetition of the same actions in the expectation of different results comes to mind. All said and done, the only group subject to being swayed are those who are relatively indifferent and haven't considered that the erosion of one right leaves their favored right equally vulnerable.

 

[ViperJock]

Greetings ViperJock! I am Peter Gunn of Tavernkeepers and the author of this article. You do raise some interesting points and I thought I could provide some texture. First, I have tried on SEVERAL occasions to Allow MDA to refute my conclusions. They refuse to even do me the courtesy of a reply. If my theory is incorrect why would they not be the first ones to point it out? I have also cited the source of my information as their own facebook page and her LinkedIn. Anyone can duplicate what I have done and if there is an alternate explanation that fits I would be interested in hearing it and I would be happy to publish in on tavernkeepers.com. As all of us who support the cause are aware, the Anti Gun forces are constantly out there creating astroturf organizations and misrepresenting them, in addition to other hypocrisies and baldfaced lies. From where I sit, our stock in trade is the truth, not only about lawful gun ownership but in exposing the untruths the other side presents. You are quite correct that we are 'the choir' but if we do not 'sing' the fence sitters will not have the correct information and may be enticed to other side. If we allow the lies to make the headlines without challenge,our silence could be interpreted as agreement to them as fact. As far as countering MDA intelligently I certain agree. Since they avoid opposing views like the plague, it would seem the smart move would be to attempt to get them into a public debate and present this stuff, and the Jack in the Box BS and all their other claims and ask them to explain it. Since you folks are in her home state, who better than you? Their refusal should speak volumes. I certainly welcome your thoughts on what should be done. tkpetergunn@gmail.com By all means keep challenging and help us all stay sharp! -Peter

Peter, welcome to INGO. First of all, failure to refute (similar to invoking 5th ammemdment rights) may look suspicious, but it hardly qualifies as proof of anything. My issue with your article is not the points you make but 1. That the theories are blindly accepted as fact. 2. Your interpretation of her response to Newton. Hello thought police? Just because she was possibly already planning an attack on our 2A rights doesn't mean she wasn't saddened and appalled by the tragedy. Furthermore, her public statement on the tragedy can hardly be used to accurately assess her personal feelings on the matter. You make a ver big assumption there and then use it as part of your proof. 3. As previously stated, while you could be correct in your conspiracy theory, I do not believe this type of accusation will damage her reputation amongst her peers nor will it help our cause. Ergo I find it irritating that gun owners jump on this as some sort of smoking gun and remedy for the disease of MDA that afflicts us.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Greetings ViperJock! I am Peter Gunn of Tavernkeepers and the author of this article. You do raise some interesting points and I thought I could provide some texture. First, I have tried on SEVERAL occasions to Allow MDA to refute my conclusions. They refuse to even do me the courtesy of a reply. If my theory is incorrect why would they not be the first ones to point it out? I have also cited the source of my information as their own facebook page and her LinkedIn. Anyone can duplicate what I have done and if there is an alternate explanation that fits I would be interested in hearing it and I would be happy to publish in on tavernkeepers.com. As all of us who support the cause are aware, the Anti Gun forces are constantly out there creating astroturf organizations and misrepresenting them, in addition to other hypocrisies and baldfaced lies. From where I sit, our stock in trade is the truth, not only about lawful gun ownership but in exposing the untruths the other side presents. You are quite correct that we are 'the choir' but if we do not 'sing' the fence sitters will not have the correct information and may be enticed to other side. If we allow the lies to make the headlines without challenge,our silence could be interpreted as agreement to them as fact. As far as countering MDA intelligently I certain agree. Since they avoid opposing views like the plague, it would seem the smart move would be to attempt to get them into a public debate and present this stuff, and the Jack in the Box BS and all their other claims and ask them to explain it. Since you folks are in her home state, who better than you? Their refusal should speak volumes. I certainly welcome your thoughts on what should be done. tkpetergunn@gmail.com By all means keep challenging and help us all stay sharp! -Peter

Guess what happens when you post government statistics on any MDA FaceBook page? FB deactivates your account - obviously from their complaints.

 

[TKpeterGunn]

I am glad to be here! A small point of clarification Shannon Watts claim is that Newton was her inspiratiton to start MDA and even calls herself an "accidental activist". Her narrative as directly quoted in the legacy media was that she was in training to be a yoga instructor when Newtown happened and caused her to make a Facebook page that magically morphed into a national movement. I don't see what I wrote so much as a conspiracy theory ( although there is theory involved no question) as a challenge to her story which I don't believe passes the sniff test. Apparently I don't pass your sniff test! :-)

 

[John Galt]

 

[ViperJock]

I am glad to be here! A small point of clarification Shannon Watts claim is that Newton was her inspiratiton to start MDA and even calls herself an "accidental activist". Her narrative as directly quoted in the legacy media was that she was in training to be a yoga instructor when Newtown happened and caused her to make a Facebook page that magically morphed into a national movement. I don't see what I wrote so much as a conspiracy theory ( although there is theory involved no question) as a challenge to her story which I don't believe passes the sniff test. Apparently I don't pass your sniff test! :-)

I'm a person who can get things done. Get a lot done very quickly. Especially if I have a few connections already and am highly motivated. I just don't see what she did as out of the real of possibility. And frankly, my point has been from the start: It doesn't matter. Your argument only appeals to people who already dislike her. Preaching to the choir. The problem with conservatives is they always preach to the choir. The Left is winning because they know how to change public opinion and conservatives think that if they just make their point if view known everyone will magically agree with them. You are fighting the wrong battle. Spend your time how you want. IMO I wouldn't waste time and energy to attack Watts' motivation; it's pointless.

 

[jamil]

I'm a person who can get things done. Get a lot done very quickly. Especially if I have a few connections already and am highly motivated. I just don't see what she did as out of the real of possibility. And frankly, my point has been from the start: It doesn't matter. Your argument only appeals to people who already dislike her. Preaching to the choir. The problem with conservatives is they always preach to the choir. The Left is winning because they know how to change public opinion and conservatives think that if they just make their point if view known everyone will magically agree with them. You are fighting the wrong battle. Spend your time how you want. IMO I wouldn't waste time and energy to attack Watts' motivation; it's pointless.

I guess that's one opinion. The left does indeed know how to change public opinion. The most successful tactic they've used is shaming society into agreement. MDA is a great example of that, but to make shame work most effectively, the message has to project innocence overcoming the forces of evil conservatives. Shannon Watts has to be seen as this everyday, average soccer mom, driven by grief to start this grassroots movement to defeat the evil gun lobby. But the whole premise of MDA's existence is likely a fraud.

Is that going to sway the opinion of a rabidly anti gun person? No. Their minds are made up. But not everyone's opinion is formed, and many opinions on this topic are formed from not much more than a casual consideration. Certainly these people won't read that article, unless directed there by people like us. The appeal of the Soccer mom who's passion and determination alone, drove a miraculous growth of MDA is diminished if she's really a hired PR exec to front one of Bloomberg's pet people control projects. I think the article gives us a point to argue.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm a person who can get things done. Get a lot done very quickly. Especially if I have a few connections already and am highly motivated. I just don't see what she did as out of the real of possibility. And frankly, my point has been from the start: It doesn't matter. Your argument only appeals to people who already dislike her. Preaching to the choir. The problem with conservatives is they always preach to the choir. The Left is winning because they know how to change public opinion and conservatives think that if they just make their point if view known everyone will magically agree with them. You are fighting the wrong battle. Spend your time how you want. IMO I wouldn't waste time and energy to attack Watts' motivation; it's pointless.

Then why don't you have a national gun rights organization of your own influencing policy? If you really think this can be done, we'll wait. Hell, I would even give you another 6 months to pull it together, which is a lot more than Watts claimed to have needed.

I also find it curious that, as previously addressed, you don't see how challenging the apparently fraudulent nature of her narrative could impact the undecided who are being swayed by her righteously pure image as the primary tool of drawing them in.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

The point that MDA is not grassroots is valid. Go to any MDA rally - any. There's practically no one there, thugs guarding Watts, free meals - exactly what happened in Indy during the NRA convention. They are the paid voice of one man. Period. If a pro-gun version were out there they'd be crucified.

 

[ViperJock]

Then why don't you have a national gun rights organization of your own influencing policy? If you really think this can be done, we'll wait. Hell, I would even give you another 6 months to pull it together, which is a lot more than Watts claimed to have needed.

I also find it curious that, as previously addressed, you don't see how challenging the apparently fraudulent nature of her narrative could impact the undecided who are being swayed by her righteously pure image as the primary tool of drawing them in.

I have no desire to do that. And if I tried I'd be crucified by the gun owners I'm trying to help. Unlike SW who had ample time, desire, and an unending line of zombies just waiting for something like that to join.

I have previously invited you to change my mind by showing me the people who have been influenced by the article to change their mind.

 

[ViperJock]

The point that MDA is not grassroots is valid. Go to any MDA rally - any. There's practically no one there, thugs guarding Watts, free meals - exactly what happened in Indy during the NRA convention. They are the paid voice of one man. Period. If a pro-gun version were out there they'd be crucified.

So grass roots necessitates a large following? Maybe all of her "chapters" only have 1 or 2 people. Maybe the reason you guys think she can't come up with a "national" movement is because you think she has more than a handful of loud mouthed folks spread through the "nation." Combine that with some of Bloombergs cash for advertising and she has what the Brady campaign has. A lot of cash and support from a few people with big mouths.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

So grass roots necessitates a large following? Maybe all of her "chapters" only have 1 or 2 people. Maybe the reason you guys think she can't come up with a "national" movement is because you think she has more than a handful of loud mouthed folks spread through the "nation." Combine that with some of Bloombergs cash for advertising and she has what the Brady campaign has. A lot of cash and support from a few people with big mouths.

A large following - by definition - is a lot of people. She doesn't have a lot of people. Grassroots:lots of people.

 

[ViperJock]

A large following - by definition - is a lot of people. She doesn't have a lot of people. Grassroots:lots of people.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

grass roots - definition of grass roots by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

there is no required number of people required to achieve "grass roots" status. I could call my friends around the country and create a website. They would join my FB page as "chapters" of wherever they are from and whammo! Grass roots organization. Now say a millionaire likes my premise and decides to promote me. Bingo MDA. Even easier if I am SW and have democrat PR background. She puts up a FB page, calls her friends, gets a little money from bloomberg et al and voila she has overnight created MDA.

Or or maybe she is anti2A already and has been talking to people about doing something. Then Newtown happens and it is the extra push she needs to get started. It DOESNT MATTER. What matters is not how she got there but that she did and now we have to convince people that her premise is wrong. Not simper and whine

"but but but MDA isn't grass roots (whimper). It's not fair! She shouldn't be allowed to say Newtown convinced her to start MDA because she already hated guns (whimper) Make her stop doing MDA because Bloomberg is helping her too much."

I prefer the approach based around the BS premise she espouses rather than the POSSIBILITY that she had MDA ready to go ahead if time. My approach is to introduce people to shooting. Help them buy and train. If left wing extremist ideas come up I explain the fallacy and present data. I don't even bring MDA into the conversation. IMO the best way to combat ignorance and gun control is to get more people owning their own guns and joining the existing organizations such as the NRA. Obviously a few of you guys feel differently. I can no longer count fingers and toes of new shooters I've brought into the fold. As I have said, I'm open to new effective methods. When you have some success stories, please share them so I have data to consider.

Whatever. Anyway it's my opinion vs your opinion. I don't care how you fight the fight. All I've said is this method irritates me and my opinion is that there are better ways and that if I were an Anti2A activist I'd be laughing at stuff like this thinking "good. The pro 2a folks are wasting their time and look like tin foil conspiracy nut jobs."

i think ink ive beat this dead horse to a pulp so I'm not gonna argue with you anymore. Carry on.