What CSGV Is Doing

I’ve been observing Coalition to Stop Gun Violence for the past several days on Twitter, trying to figure out what they thought they had to gain by debating this and that with pro-2A tweeters. Then, when they kept pushing this post on their Twitter and Facebook feeds it kind of clicked.

One of the great myths our opponents hold on to is that of fighting some nameless, faceless, and positively evil force that’s trying to bring more chaos and violence into the world in the worship of the almighty dollar. In the past this has been some faceless “gun lobby” who are, of course, intimately intertwined with gun manufacturers, who naturally want more gun violence, because it means more money in their pockets. You can see Violence Policy Center still pushing that meme heavily, even though the fact that the firearms industry provides a tiny fraction of NRA’s total operating income is easily verifiable.

They hold on to this myth because it is necessary for them. The more mainstream groups are starting to realize VPC’s ridiculous won’t hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. Newspapers know there’s millions of American behind this effort, because they get floods of e-mails and comments any time they bring up the issue. We’ve been visible, out there, and more importantly seen defending our rights. The loss of this myth is extremely devastating to the anti-gun movement because it is much easier to convince your people to struggle against a faceless, evil force than it is to convince your people to take away something from fellow citizens that they think is important to them. What CSGV is trying to do is to replace the notion that the gun lobby is evil, with the notion that gun owners are evil. By showcasing some of our side’s more blunt and nasty comments, they can get their people fired up, and make them feel good that they are struggling against evil people. That’s reflected in the comments:

(Remember, they don’t want to ban guns. Right? Right!?)

I’ve also noticed that these particular threads attract more comments. CSGV knows that, which is why they are showcasing our nasty comments to their followers. I think we do better as a movement when we present ourselves as reasonable people, and flip the debate around to demand to know why they want to take an important constitutional right away from us. Why they don’t think we should have the ability to defend our families. Put a happy face on it, and watch it sap their motivation. These people are busybodies that want to insert their noses into places they don’t belong. Call them out on it. But it’s wise to not live up to everything they want to believe about us.

20 Responses to “What CSGV Is Doing”

  1. Weer'd Beard says:

    They are also an elitist sewing circle that only associate with people who think exactly like them.

    I mean just read Joan Peterson’s blog, she constantly says that people supporting gun rights are a minority, and all of her friends, even the gun owners don’t see a need for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, or rifles with pistol grips, or private sales.

    She’s saying this without the smallest hint of irony. Why? Because she believes it. She Believes it because she refuses to associate with anybody who might disagree with her. I see the same behavior all the time here in Mass…I’ve seen similar behavior from Right-wing people in deep red states. They can’t imagine anybody who would disagree with them.

    This is a HUGE point of weakness, as they lack all ability to relate to those who are moderate or undecided.

    Certainly we need to put the happy face on our side, but really I see any effort to work on these people is a lost cause. They know reality doesn’t support them, and for whatever reason they choose to continue down the anti-rights path.

    I used to be one of them, there was no way I could have remained anti after I saw the facts. They are not rational to do what they do.

    What we NEED to do is get more people interested in shooting sports, and into responsible firearm ownership (the more people with skin in this game then more people who will get involved), and make sure that the fairweather gun owners know the stakes and the facts and don’t turn into the Elmer Fudds of the early 1990s when the lines get drawn in the sand.

    Not everybody can be reasonable or sane. But Reason and Sanity are defined as they are because the unreasonable and the insane are uncommon.

  2. Jacob says:

    I don’t accept your premise that our opponents think they are fighting a nameless, faceless force. The people who run CSGV, VPC, etc. know full well they are far out of the mainstream of society just as they know full well what they are doing is destructive and wrong. They just don’t care. They are not good people.

  3. Sebastian says:

    It’s not so much that you want to convince them, but you want them to have better things to do with their time and money.

  4. thirdpower says:

    Of course on the other hand, the majority of people commenting on their FB are just as nasty as the posts they highlight. They stated they want their people to get ‘loud’. let them. they’ll turn people off just as fast as we highlight the kind of soulless fanatics they produce.

  5. Sebastian says:

    That’s true, Thirdpower, but angry people give money. That’s all that matters.

  6. Jacob says:

    Why? I don’t want to get along with them.

  7. Sebastian says:

    That’s because you have no soul Jacob. Just ask John above. You’re just like a ginger kid.

  8. Jacob says:

    Why would I, or anyone else, want to get along with a bunch of people who are willfully engaged in destructive, antisocial behavior? The point you keep missing is that the people running these anti groups *know* what they are doing is wrong. They’re not misguided and they’re not stupid.

  9. Sebastian says:


    I’m not disagreeing with you. But they need to raise money from people who are in order to survive. They also need to motivate some percentage of these people to have any prayer of even putting on a show that they are grass roots organizations.

  10. David Lawson aka Melancton Smith says:

    Very interesting the person asking “why are they so afraid of non-violence?” That’s like saying someone carrying an umbrella is afraid of non-dryness.

  11. John says:

    Jacob, those organizational people (brady’s and VPC) want to brand us with the stereotype of an angry mob that people need to fear. When we fail to live up to the stereotype, their lies are exposed that much sooner. It doesn’t mean that we pull punches or feign friendship. What it means is we provide facts and expose their lies and faulty assumptions in a coherent manner without the hate and bile they direct at us.

  12. The Second Anonymous says:

    Some people are reasonable. I was once on their side, but I looked at facts, and numbers, and the Constitution, and I switched.

    But some, like these cowards who do not believe OTHERS have the right to use “violence” to defend themselves, are just idiots. Anti-gun idiots are just like socialists idiots and communists idiots, you can be polite and explain and show them numbers, they’ll turn around and scream “you poor minority hatin’ redneck damn Tea Partier-er” when they are out of things to use.

    Last time I check, I am a a low income none-white minority.

    So, I’ve given up on these idiots. That’s why SUING the hell out of them [thanks, SAF] is the only way to work for some.

    You don’t like our basic rights, I’ll send money to SAF to sue your ass. If you wanna cry, I’ll laugh at your ass.

  13. The Second Anonymous says:

    ps. of course I never call them an idiot in their face. I usually let them cast the first stone.

  14. mobo says:

    Doesn’t matter. We will give them all the ammo they need, it never fails. 99% of us could be perfectly reasonable people, but the microscope will always be on the wackerdoodles.

    It’s just like the gay pride parades…. where our attention is drawn to the guy in assless chaps juggling flaming dildos while on stilts. Or the Tea Party guy with a sign depicting Obama as a chimpanzee. We will always have “that guy” to contend with.

  15. TS says:

    Interesting that the comments for the post calling a pro-2A blogger out for name calling (coward) include: scum, pathetic, sad, ugly, idiot (that’s anyone who fight for 2A rights- not just Miguel), punk, jerk, intellectually deficient, emotionally unstable, and nut job. Not to mention this comment: “Why do you want to eliminate my right to self-defense? Is protecting criminals that important to you?”. Oh, wait. How did that get there? Moderator?

  16. Link P says:

    Omaba as a chimpanzee = RACIST!
    Bush as a chimpanzee = clever protest sign

    Am I missing something here?

  17. Yu-Ain Gonnano says:

    Someone with a facebook account ought to agree with Jamie Gronko that a woman who’s been raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is morally superior to the woman explaining to the cops how her attacker got those fatal gun shot wounds.

  18. Thirdpower says:

    Ladd Everitt of the CSGV has stated that the ‘essential purpose’ for Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws are to “allow gun owners to kill needlessly but legally. ”

    Rape victims need not apply.

  19. counsel says:

    I wonder if Jamie’s opinion would change if someone was killing folk and started to turn on her IF she knew I could kill the crazy attacker but only by using my gun. Or, would she prefer I let the crazy person shoot her or her children because she can not condone the use of a firearm for ANY reason…. Wonder what she thinks of the police….??

  20. Yu-Ain Gonnano says:

    Yeah, the idea that she would stand by helplessly while her (hypothetical?) young daughter was beaten, raped and murdered because she wouldn’t be able to live with herself after dirtying herself ( or anyone else) with having used a nasty gun.

    It’s pretty revealing when someone looks at the two and says that soiling themselves with a gun is the worse option.

    And they call us morally depraved.