Every Day, No Days Off had a post showing a new campaign by Moms Demand Action. After first I thought the campaign images were a parody until I looked at their website. As it turns out the pictures are not parody images, they’re part of the organization’s actual campaign. Let’s take a look at the three images currently available on their site.
First we have this example:
This picture implies that the banning of Little Red Riding Hood from schools was legitimate. I guess Moms Demand Action support censorship.
Next up his this ditty:
Banning dodge ball, at least banning rubber balls instead of foam balls, was one of the biggest let downs of my youth. Dodge ball was one of the few games I was decent at and it was a great deal of fun. Then one kid got hurt and the game was replaced by a mockery that relied on foam balls that couldn’t get tossed fast enough to hit even the slowest kid. But the game wasn’t banned because it was viewed as “too violent,” the use of rubber balls was merely banned because a kid was injured.
Third we have this monstrosity:
Nothing is prohibiting children from buying Kinder chocolate eggs. In fact they were available during Easter.
Now that I’ve commented on each images individual absurdity it’s time to comment on the absurdity they all have in common. None of the times mentioned in the three pictures have been banned in America. Some of those times may have been banned from some schools but children haven’t been prohibited from enjoying them outside of school. Firearms are a different manner. Under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 non-state entities, which includes all children, are prohibited from bringing firearms into school zones. In addition to that most states prohibit children from being in possession of firearms unless they are being supervised by an adult. The examples given by Moms Demand Action are asinine. In fact the implications behind made in those pictures are outright bald-faced lies.
I’m not an ends justify the means kind of guy and that’s probably why I don’t understand why Moms Demand Action believe it’s acceptable to lie so blatantly. Look, I get it, they don’t like guns. While I don’t agree with gun control advocates I believe we can have a debate without having to resort to outright dishonesty.
Someone needs to parody this campaign. How about a picture of a piece of pizza crust bit into the shape of a “gun” and a teacher crapping her pants?
Or a child that points with their fingers and says “bang” and the bloody children that he “killed” with his fingernail?
Their group/campaign should be called “Moms Demand Attention”
The analogy falls apart on the first slide. Little Red was banned from some SCHOOLS. Guns already are banned from schools.
They also further degrade their own analogy in their caption that the wine was the reason, not “protection”.
Second fail, again, dodge ball banned from schools, NOT banned in general. Kids already can’t own guns.
Third… Same shit, different slide.
Yeah. I’ve seen gun control advocates fail before (many times before) but I think Moms Demand Action really takes the cake. Usually gun control advocates at least have some kernel of truth hiding in their statements (for example, it is true that somebody crunched some numbers and was able to get the desired results). This campaign… I don’t even know what to say. It’s so blatant in it’s lying that I fail to understand how anybody approved it.
Moms Demand Action actually make a great case for not sending your kids to school.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the basis on which you criticise the ads:
– The rationale for the “Little Red Riding Hood” comment was not necessarily for the group to ‘support’ censorship; it is more likely to express the absurdity of it being censored in the first place and to then imply that the allowance of bearing arms is just as ridiculous.
– Dodgeball is a sport and, therefore, implies people will inevitably get hurt as injuries can easily occur from sports. Again, I think they are just expressing how absurd they think one is and then comparing it to bearing arms.
– The Kinder egg ban has been an ongoing issue since 1932 and only VERY recently has it been possibly overturned due to reshaping the egg; the article, dated only last month, is found at http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/us-ban-of-kinder-eggs-cracked-at-last-8539723.html. Therefore, the ad is justified on the egg account.
I am in support of gun control, but I will not go out of my way to tell you that you cannot have guns (for I can find a much better use of my time elsewhere). Gun control laws can be created wisely to still allow people to own guns, but within reason so that only those that cannot be trusted with them (e.g. ex-criminals, violent, aggressive people with “histories”, etc.) do not get a hold of them so easily, as is currently the case in the United States. Guns for hunting game could be accepted, but machine rifles? Absolutely not. Some guns should simply be banned completely, whereas others could be allowed for specific purposes.
However, I do see your point with the excessiveness of their posters; surely with the first two posters, the book and the sport are not banned in ALL U.S. schools. Therefore, I understand why you find the ads to be a bit ridiculous. The third poster, though, still remains justified to me as the Kinder egg issue is only being reconsidered now with the new modifications.
I acknowledge that the ads could be interpreted in multiple ways. If they are trying to express the banning of the listed items as being absurd then I still believe the ads are in error because the rifles those children are holding are banned from schools and unsupervised children (a child can use one at a firing range under the supervision of a parent or guardian but legally that’s the extent of their legal possession).
That’s cool. Everybody is entitled to their opinion and should enjoy civil discussion regarding it.
I disagree with this. My opposition to gun control stems, primarily, from my support of the non-aggression principle. It is my belief that any initiation of force is wrong. Gun control, along with any state law, is an initiation of force. For example, if the state decrees that “assault weapons” are no longer legal to possession that decrees comes with an “or else” clause. What the law says is you will not own “assault weapons” otherwise you will be kidnapped and locked in a cage for an arbitrarily selected number of years. My possession of an “assault weapon” is no violent, I’ve harmed nobody with them or any other firearm in my possession.
Since gun control laws rely on the threat or use of force to combat nonviolent behavior I cannot morally support them in any way.
As an interesting side I do also find it ironic that an organization that uses guns to inflict violent on nonviolent individuals (cannabis users for example) is given the right to decide who can and cannot be trusted with a firearm.