Saturday, January 12, 2013

Message from Ladd Everitt

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

"The era of no accountability is over."

That's what I told Rachel Maddow last night when interviewed on her show.  Politicians who shill for the NRA, disrespect victims and survivors of gun violence, and put our families in harm's way will now have to answer to us.
During the segment, Rachel Maddow highlighted hard-hitting ads the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) ran this week criticizing Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) for calling the White House's efforts to reform our gun laws "extreme."  The ads were signed by four parents who lost their children in mass shootings and focused on three simple words, "SHAME ON YOU." Americans were urged to call Senator Heitkamp's office to express their disgust over her remarks. And they did just that.
Almost immediately after the ads started running, Heitkamp completely changed her position, declaring, "We have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill."
The political landscape on the gun issue is changing. As Maddow told her audience last night, supporters of gun laws have never been so "organized and ambitious." Our message is clear:  If you put our loved ones in the line of fire, you will confront an energized grassroots base that will overwhelm you with phone calls, emails and face-to-face contacts.
Let's the keep the heat on. Call your Members of Congress at (202) 224-3121 and tell them you want to see immediate action to strengthen our gun laws.

I believe we are headed to a brighter day, a more peaceful America. And I thank you for working with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence to bring us there.

Ladd Everitt
Director of Communications


  1. All this talk about "disrespecting victims" falls flat when you post pictures with captions like the ones of Kieth Ratliff and Melanie Hain.

    We get accused of disrespecting victims because we won't agree to every gun control measure you want.

    You post pictures of victims with disrespectful comments scribbled on them.

    Who is disrespecting victims?

    1. "Disrespecting victims," "dancing in the blood," it's all a diversionary tactic on your part. The NRA and gun-rights advocates are responsible for this. That's the real bottom line and that's the one you guys keep trying to deflect attention away from.

    2. Civilian disarmament advocates are infamous for diversion, ad homs, strawman arguments and blatant demonization of inanimate objects as well as law abiding Citizens.

    3. Mike,

      Think back over our conversations over the past several weeks. I have not made those charges when you have brought up people and incidents as evidence for your side. I've addressed your arguments and tried to come up with my own suggestions regarding how we can protect the victims.

      The thing that has gotten me riled up are the photos Dog Gone published on her other blog and then you reposted here. Hell, if you hadn't reposted them here, just linked to her blog, I'd have probably only gone after her there.

      Frankly, you've offered defenses of them that have ranged from them not being disrespectful to them being excusable since they are just biting satire to try to wake us up. You can't dress it up with sophistry. Both are disrespectful, and the one of Kieth Ratliff, with its glib tone, is certainly a bit of blood dancing on the part of the person who initially made it. You and Dog Gone may not be intending to dance in the blood of Mr. Ratliff by reposting it, but by posting it and the defending it as appropriate and proper to a civil discussion, you're certainl getting splashed by the dancing of the person who made it.

    4. Your opinion about those pictures has been received loud and clear. I told you how I feel about them. Can we move on?

    5. I've been moving on and offering comments germane to the topic on other posts. I thought it was germane to bring this up here since Ladd was accusing anyone opposing an "Assault Weapon" ban of disrespecting victims.

      However, I'll offer a deal--I'll stop complaining about the tasteless photos if you will stop using the moniker "Lawful Gun Owner" every time you post a story about criminal gun use. You can use it for irresponsible people and you can still post the stories about criminal use and make your arguments based on them, just don't use the "Lawful Gun Owner" intro.

    6. No deal. As a lawyer, you should appreciate what Greg refuses to, that people are innocent until proven guilty. The group called "lawful gun owners" contains many who are not only irresponsible but even engaged in criminal activity. They are not, however, criminal gun owners until convicted in a court of law. Until then they are "lawful gun owners."

    7. We all fully understand the idea of innocent until proven guilty. We are the ones who actually show more appreciation for it by insisting that people not be deprived of their rights unless a competent court convicts them or finds them mentally unfit rather than advocating for "may issue" permitting of ownership that would allow, nay encourage the police to deny the permit on the basis of non-convicted crimes.

      I just thought we might find a compromise where all you had to give up was titling the posts "Lawful Gun Owner ..." but could still make the same argument.

      Never let it be said that I have not tried to offer common ground for compromise.

    8. Compromise is impossible with a control freak.

      But Mikeb, I appreciate the standard that we are innocent until proven guilty. That's a legal standard during the judicial process. The question of whether a gun owner is lawful or not has that aspect, but there are other matters to consider. If the person is committing criminal acts, said person is not lawful. That statement is true by definition. The person may not have been convicted yet, but that's irrelevant to the nature of the gun owner.

    9. Well, as you may have already noticed I won't allow you to twist the meaning of things on my blog. Around here there are only two types of gun owners, lawful and criminal. A sub-set of the lawful group is the "hidden criminals." That's it.

    10. You mean, you don't like it when I attempt to clarify terms, using facts and logic, to avoid misdirection and sloppiness.

  2. Rachel Maddow interviewed Ladd Everitt? Did Karl Marx also have a conversation with Frederich Engels?