search
top

Internal Strife at Everytown

Looks like Kate Ranta is on the outs with Everytown. The reason? Everytown started to move in on the FoP, and some of their kookier members lost their shit because the FoP do not support their mission of disarming Americans with sufficient zeal.

Any readers out there who are cops should read this article, and have zero doubt these people will absolutely disarm you if they get half a chance.

On Thursday, I resigned as an Everytown Survivor Fellow after being blocked by the Survivor Network Facebook page for voicing my concerns about the sponsorship. My conclusion is that dissenting voices have no place in these organizations. You toe the line or you’re out.

Of course. They don’t need you. Bloomberg gives them plenty of money. Not having to worry about what grassroots members think helps them stay on message. If you’re no longer useful to them, they don’t want or need you.

25 Responses to “Internal Strife at Everytown”

  1. Ian Argent says:

    The author notes her husband “was able to legally own and purchase firearms despite being under a temporary restraining order in Florida.”

    That second part (purchase firearms) is a downcheck on a 4473, I thought?

  2. Whetherman says:

    “… the FoP do not support their mission of disarming Americans with sufficient zeal.”

    Not sufficient zeal for Everytown, perhaps, but historically the FoP supports far more gun control than I can use.

    See, just for a top-level example, this discussion at Glock Talk.

    I have so much history under my belt that I can only maintain a mental shitlist of people and organizations, without always being able to remember, without review, why they are on that list. In the case of the FoP, I remembered that being able to cite their support for gun control was what I would use to make their obnoxiuos fund raisers hang up quickly, when they tried to shake down my business over the phone.

    I’m only raising the issue because Sebastian’s phrase above could conceivably be construed by youngsters as meaning the FoP is pro-gun. They’re not, and far from it.

  3. MattW says:

    My favorite part of the horribly written opinion piece is where she is bagging on the FOP because they supported Project ChildSafe:

    “In 2015, Pasco wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch requesting millions in taxpayer funding for the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s controversial “Project ChildSafe” program.”

    Very funny given your other recent post about how the two organizations essentially obtained Project ChildSafe locks under false pretenses and then rebranded them with their own “BeSMARTForKids” campaign.

  4. Whetherman says:

    “the two organizations essentially obtained Project ChildSafe locks under false pretenses and then rebranded them with their own “BeSMARTForKids” campaign.”

    I recall that one of the rules for conducting guerrilla warfare is “utilize your enemy’s resources as if they are your own.”

    I imagine they read the same set of rules I did. They were in every Army base library, in my day.

    • MattW says:

      Sure, not saying it wasn’t a shrewd move on their part – my comment was specifically in regards to the irony of an Everytown Fellow calling something controversial when the organization itself is now marketing an identical program (with someone else resources).

      • Whetherman says:

        Your point is valid, and very well taken.

        My point almost always is, that tactically there is almost nothing new under the sun, except possibly the adaptation of tactics to new technologies. And, no ideology will eschew the use of any tactic, if the alternative is, to not win.

        I think anyone who fails to grasp those basic facts cannot really grasp real tactics, and will be shortsighted in their application.

        Think how often discussions of tactics — usually scummy-sounding tactics — devolve into arguments over “who started it” or “who was worse.” Probably the answer to that is, some caveman back in prehistory. (Think of how the military tactics of Sun Tzu are studied to this day.)

  5. Johannes Paulsen says:

    Their objective isn’t really to build a grass roots organization — one doesn’t hire an ex-Monsanto PR flack to do that unless one’s an idiot, and Bloomberg is not an idiot. The point is to stay visible, spread fear uncertainty and doubt about guns and gun owners, and try to control the long-term debate about guns in the nation.

    The latest is trying to tie the NRA to “white supremacy”, since that’s trendy nowadays. That was the big buzzword amongst the protesters at the NRA Carry Guard Expo this weekend. And now Shannon is getting into the act. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/08/robert-farago/quote-day-shannon-watts-nras-dog-whistle-racism/

    • Whetherman says:

      “The latest is trying to tie the NRA to ‘white supremacy'”

      There is nothing quite as useful for that as having an NRA director, elected by a landslide, using white supremacist terms like “mongrel” when speaking of a mixed-race president.

      Remember that infamous quote about “selling them the rope?”

      • Johannes Paulsen says:

        Quite.

      • Whetherman says:

        “…elected by a landslide…”

        It of course would not be fair to indict the NRA’s membership (which includes me) for what that implies, but of course it is what will be done. That said, I’m not sure it isn’t fair to indict NRA’s management.

        I have not been able to find the number of votes Nugent received, but I understand only a single-digit percentage of NRA members vote, and only some fraction of those voted for Nugent. So only a tiny percentage of NRA members actually cast votes for him.

        On the other hand, I have had some experience with how the NRA can get rid of directors that come to be at cross purposes with their main management. Having seen no evidence of an attempt to shut out Nugent, I have to assume they are perfectly happy with him and his antics. So, it would seem that to indict “the NRA” for embracing a white supremacist for some self-serving motive of its own, is not entirely off-base.

        Just don’t blame the entire membership for anything except a low voter turnout.

        • Johannes Paulsen says:

          Personally, I’ve not seen any evidence that Ted Nugent is a ‘white supremacist’, or even a garden-variety racist as much as a performer for whom no publicity is bad publicity.

          But what does it matter? Every movement has iconoclasts, and I suspect that most people who are truly disgusted by Ted Nugent’s antics weren’t going to give the Second Amendment the time o’day anyway.

          I’m not going to defend the stuff Nugent says, but at the same time…what does it profit us to devote political capital toward evicting him? Get rid of him, and suddenly there’ll be a stampede of people from the anti-gun side to our side?

          • Sebastian says:

            There’s no way the NRA is getting rid of Ted Nugent while we’re in the middle of a backlash against political correctness. The NRA has the power to get rid of marginal troublemakers from the Board. Big troublemakers like Nugget could run and win by petition if need be.

            • Whetherman says:

              “The NRA has the power to get rid of marginal troublemakers…”

              I have to agree. The example I have in mind was a rank-and-file NRA Board member from PA. The irony (to me) was, that he was gotten rid of for being “to the right” of “The Winning Team” on gun rights issues, though he fell far short of being a radical about it. Mere meaningful criticism was all it took to be shown the door.

              The sad thing was, that he was a committed gun rights activist (obviously) who subsequently left “the movement” completely, to the best of my knowledge.

          • Whetherman says:

            “Personally, I’ve not seen any evidence that Ted Nugent is a ‘white supremacist’…”

            A guy who builds his “publicity” on calling mixed race people “mongrels” and Hispanics “beanochimps?”

            I guess that lack of evidence sure fooled the shit out of me!

            • Johannes Paulsen says:

              Hi — Actual Chicano here. In my experience, a person (particularly one born before 1960) using a few ethnic slurs may make the person foolish or an asshole (and yes, he checks off both of those boxes.) It does not, however, make that person dedicated to an ideology of white supremacy.

              Perhaps the Nuge actually is dedicated to a white supremacist ideology, but lacking the ability to read his mind, I cannot make that call. And unless you have more evidence than what you’ve presented, neither can you in all honesty.

  6. Brad says:

    The Left Wing coalition of anti-gun groups and anti-police groups was always a contradictory and unstable alliance. I’m just surprised we haven’t seen even more infighting.

    I suppose all that free-flowing money from douchebag billionaires calms troubled waters?

  7. Richard says:

    The woman is a complete fool but she is not wrong about Bloomberg.

    It is interesting to see how the general leftist world view has leaked into her protest. Specifically, the stuff about the police shooting unarmed black people has no obvious connection to gun control. No gun control organization, to my knowledge, has proposed disarming the police (yet).

    • Whetherman says:

      “No gun control organization, to my knowledge, has proposed disarming the police (yet).”

      I can’t name names off the top of my head, but given that “the left” has taken a leadership role in criticizing “the militarization of the police,” I would not be surprised if a gun control group has added their voice to that.

      I think “the right” has been ambivalent about that issue, with opinions falling somewhere between castigating “jack-booted thugs” and advocating for “getting tough(er) on crime” (i.e., “shoot the bastards.”)

      • Richard says:

        I wouldn’t be surprised if there was one out there. I just haven’t seen it. But objecting to militarization of the police or specific actions that may have been improper is not the same as advocating the disarmament of police. Gun control is all about disarming citizens not the government. General leftism on the other hand, tends to regard the police as enemies up to the point when they get control.

  8. Whetherman says:

    “General leftism on the other hand, tends to regard the police as enemies up to the point when they get control.”

    I will generally agree, with only the quibble that we should replace “leftism” with “authoritarianism” in your sentence. “Authoritarianism” is that point where “the left” and “the right” fold over to look exactly like each other.

    (For the moment I don’t want to get into the whole subject of how the one-dimensional, left/right spectrum totally fails at adequately characterizing the political spectrum.)

    I reflect that “conservatives” probably like the police because they see cops as using their authority to maintain the status quo, a virtue to conservatives. That is what the police are hired to do, defend the Establishment. Those who oppose the Establishment and its status quo in any way are considered legitimate targets for police oppression.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Bloomberg Steals from the Little Guys | Shall Not Be Questioned - […] He can’t rebrand himself as “not a billionaire.” It is something that has worked against him repeatedly since it…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top