search
top

The PR War Between the Anti-Gun Groups

Moms Demand Illegal Mayors, or whatever the two merged groups are called these days, are declaring total victory in the Facebook/Instagram policy statement that any reported post featuring an offer to sell any regulated product privately will generate a reminder to sellers that they shouldn’t violate the law.

But the Brady Campaign swiftly sent out a letter to their supporters highlighting that the anti-gun groups didn’t get anything they demanded at all, and this is not in any way a victory. The thing is, the Brady Campaign is right on this, at least coming from a gun banner’s perspective.

Remember that what the Moms/Illegal Mayors were demanding was a total ban on any kind of speech/photo that might result in a gun sale. Here are a few screen caps from their campaign:

AntiGunFBDemands

AntiGunFBDemands2

The result is a clear invitation by Facebook and Instagram to sell & promote firearms using their platforms, just with reminders that they ask their users to follow the law. They also outline very specific language that they will look for and interpret as signals that show sellers may be trying to avoid the law so that sellers have a clear picture of what kinds of promotions Facebook will agree to host and those which it won’t.

The Brady Campaign is clearly pretty pissed off that Facebook has actually spelled out that gun sales, even private transfers that may not require a background check, are okay by Facebook and that their supposed “allies” in this movement are calling the continued sale of firearms, now with guidance from corporate, a victory.

15 Responses to “The PR War Between the Anti-Gun Groups”

  1. Sigivald says:

    I love how they start to hyperventilate every time they’re reminded it’s just as legal to use Facebook to mention you have a gun you’d like to sell as it is to use the nickel ads or a note at the local grocery store or word of mouth.

    Because internet!

  2. RP says:

    If the Brady Campaign wants to retain any relevance, they should probably just fall in line with Money Bags and his Moms.

    Even though MDA didn’t accomplish much with FB, if its the best they’re going to do, its probably smart to claim it as a victory and move on.

    • Bitter says:

      It really depends on how many of the followers who jumped on board with the MDA bus signed up for the Brady mailing list. While Bloomberg can keep cutting checks, if the handful of women they have managed to turn out to events take the attitude that the group isn’t serious about reform anymore, then that could cost them their image.

      • RP says:

        That’s a good point. I’ve always seen their only effective weapons as money and the media being on their side. I almost forgot some people do actually get on board with this stuff.

        There are some interesting parallels to our side here. Ideology vs pragmatism. The difference being that our base is much bigger. I think rival factions would hurt them more than the GOA flinging poo at the NRA hurts us.

      • M. Sage says:

        They don’t actually have that many (if any) followers. Look at the very few profiles on FB that are allowed to leave comments on the MDA page. The vast majority of them, if not every single one, is fake.

        As for MDA itself, Google the founder, Shannon Watts. She’s a complete fraud compared to the public image she’s put out connected to the “group” she started. She’s a professional and career media flak who’s done work for corps like (including) Monsanto. During the time she constantly claims to have been a stay at home mom, she was working as a consultant and running her own PR firm.

  3. SPQR says:

    I didn’t think it was possible for anyone to be dumber than Brady/VPC.

    Obviously I was wrong, and Moms Demand Action is dumber.

  4. motomed says:

    Moms/Mayors et. al. are first and foremost a PR group. They understand two things, first, that a vast majority of people will only see a headline, and second, that people are more likely to support a winner. They know they lost, they also know it’s in their best interest to claim they won.

  5. Archer says:

    They “demanded” that Facebook and Instagram ban gun ads and gun-related “fan pages,” but all they really wanted was attention.

    They got attention. That’s a victory. Among other things, it “proves” (to them) that they have relevance, if Facebook Corporate is willing to take valuable time to consider their request.

    The only way they’d have “lost” is if Facebook didn’t respond in any way.

  6. John says:

    These transactions take place without a background check because anybody without an FFL is legally prohibited from running a background check, even for a legal intrastate transfer between legal gun owners.

    But they never try to change *that* law. What they want is a ban.

  7. Gilbert Stroud says:

    I hope this further fragments these groups. Tie up their time and resources fighting each other as to what their final solution should be, as we carefully advance our goals one lawsuit, one election, and one bad legislation at a time.

  8. David says:

    OMG, you should see how the local ABC affiliate in Richmond is reporting this. The headline on the story on the teaser for the 5:30 news was “Facebook Bans Illegal Gun Sales.” They don’t have the video up on their web site yet (www.wric.com) but I presume it will be up at some point tonight.

    • JA says:

      David — did you drop the station an email and tell them their headline is inaccurate (!oh my!) or perhaps they be checked for a reading comprehension disability? Then hit their comments section asking if they actually read what they report on.

      Our local “progressive” activist group had a big to-do in the capitol about the awful photo ID voter requirement law that was passed recently — and required a photo ID for anyone to participate in the demonstration. (Can’t make this stuff up.) Several people asked the local TV station to mention that in their coverage. Since I don’t watch, who knows if they did… but the local talk show dude had a lot of fun with it.

  9. B says:

    Of course these anti-gun radicals completely overlook the fact that the seller has to ship the firearm to a licensed dealer (FFL holder) who in turn charges a transfer fee to the te buyer, completes the proper ATF paperwork and holds the firearm for the required waiting period depending upon the state. The anti 2A continually try to present the argument that you can by firearms with no checks and no waiting periods. Their arguments are always refuted and proven wrong.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Facebook to everyone: We’re just going to keep doing what we were doing and obey the law - […] Moms Demand Traction threatened to hold their breath until they turned blue unless facebook stopped allowing users to engage…
  2. Did Anti-Gun Groups Really Score a Victory Over Facebook? - […] Brady Campaign doesn’t agree with their anti-gun friends. ┬áIn fact, they seem downright annoyed that other groups are claiming…
  3. Shannon Watts to IN Legs: Bullies! | Shall Not Be Questioned - […] What lost Starbucks was the OC nonsense from our side, and in a sense we didn’t really lose Starbucks,…
top