Million Moms march again

Million Moms march again
: The Million Mom March and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence put a full-page ad in the NY Times today, which I’ll quote below.

The only problem with putting a full-page ad in the New York Times is that only people who get the New York Times see it.

Enter the Web.

The MMMarchers also put the text of the ad on their new site: It says:


Quietly sneaking through the United States Senate is an outrageous bill which

will slam the courthouse door shut on countless victims of gun crimes.

It will deny the families of the DC sniper victims their day in court and any

hope of justice for their loss.

Believe it or not this bill, the National Rifle Association

  • Whilst they are at it, they might ask their congresscritters to kick BATF in the *ss to chase down those crooked dealers. BATF knows full well who they are, but they’ve done NOTHING to shut them down!

  • Robert Swaim

    Bingo MommaBear, the problem is not lack of laws it’s “Lack of Law Enforcement”. If the dealer in the DC sniper case sold guns illegally, send him to jail, then all involved that Jeff is concerned about will receive “Justice”. I have mixed feelings about the law being proposed, it is really as much about “Scumbag Lawyers” as it is about “Scumbag Gun Dealers”.

  • Well, some of those lawyers could use a good swift one, also!!

  • John Anderson

    “… immunizes negligent gun dealers and gun makers against lawsuits…” – a straight, flat-out, lie. Not just mis-representation or mistake, a lie. That Washington State dealer, for example, would still have been prosecuted after this law. This law will just make it harder to sue Cessna when a forty-year-old single-engine private plane goes down as having been “negligent” (yes, this happened a few years ago – and Cessna lost!!!).
    We’ve got a lot of bad law on the books, but so far I do not think this will be one of them.

  • John Anderson

    More… Against my better judgement, I went to their site. They have the whole thing with only
    “as seen in…”! Good grief, they are not even honest enough to admit it is one of their ads, they imply
    (carefully not stating) it is a Times editorial!
    Even if I agreed with them (Heaven forfend), this would make me doubt their honesty
    and question where else they mess about in this manner.
    During a stint as a tele-marketer (ducking, “Hey, for two days!”) I had to read a script supplied
    by the Republican party to get out the vote in dertain areas. It was so bad, I dropped out of the
    party and have since refused delivery of mailed materials from them – though I still vote
    Republican, on the whole (never did just pull the big lever for “all of these”).

  • Robert Swaim

    Right Again MommaBear, *sskickins all around.

  • Craig

    Frankly, the “honest people don’t need to be worried about this bill” line can also apply to every violation of civil liberties, ever…. it’s a cheap and shoddy argument. I mean, only criminals have to worry about a new law allowing round the clock warrantless wiretapping of homes and offices, right? Or chemical interrogations? Because we all know that laws, never, ever get misapplied to punish honest, well-meaning citizens *snicker*.
    I’d be less worried about this if there hadn’t already been a number of (thankfully, failed) attempts to use lawsuits to enact de facto gun bans in jurisdictions where those bans could not be created legally.
    My biggest problem with the ad, though, is where’s the link to the text of the bill? Even for a text article, it should be very easy to say “see the bill for yourself at…”. Since they don’t, the implication (fairly or unfairly) is that the text of the bill doesn’t support the hyperbole of the ad.
    At least the website (unlike the ad) gives the bill number, so you can Google it up, and also check out variant opinions.
    I mean, if you’re trying to get them to understand the ‘power of blogs’, try to get them to understand that one reason why blogs are popular as information sources is that blogs link to what they’re attacking, so that people can read for themselves about what is being attacked. For blog readers, the link to the attacked piece is such an automatic thing to find that the lack of it on their piece has negative implications about their honesty, even if they are honest in fact. Not even including the number of the bill in the ad makes it look like they’re hiding something. And in politics, appearances often trump realities.

  • T. Hartin

    I read the ad, and I could not find a single statement of fact in it that was true. Amazing.

  • Steve Regn

    Should Ginsu get sued when some Elena Bobbit wannabe carves up the old man’s dingus? Guns don’t kill, people do. And they’ll do it with whatever is handy. Villifying the weapons mfrs for the actions of a sick society makes sense only to those who push the agenda of irresponsibility for one’s own actions. The two American cities with the tightest gun control are the same two cities with the highest gun crime rate. And you bozos see no correlation. Amazing.

  • John Anderson,
    Even I very rarely manage to do that. Even on our site, if we both catch the same story, she catches it first over half the time!

  • Robert Swaim

    Good reads all around, if Brady is involved (which they are) the agenda is to defeat anything that allows law abiding citizens to exercise constitutional rights regarding firearms. Craig is “spot on” the last thing they want is for any fair thinking voter to actually read the bill, because they will realize that it actually makes sense to everyone except “Lawyers” and gun control advocates.

  • John Anderson

    Kathy K, I am beginning to wonder if MB is actually a corporate title for two or three hundred people.