Moneyed #GunsOut Selfie Campaign Relies on Ridiculous Emotion and Ignorance

By David Codrea

ScreenHunter_06 Mar. 09 18.52
“These are the only guns I want on my campus.” That may be, but if someone evil brings real ones, what you want isn’t going to matter. And candidly, pal, those don’t look like much of a deterrent. ( video)

USA – -( “You can now protest gun violence by taking a selfie,” Teen Vogue assures its fashion-conscious young readership. The best way to do that, the article explains, is to fight for college campuses to remain “gun free zones.” That means forbidding adults who can lawfully exercise their right to keep and bear arms everywhere else from doing so once they cross the same property line that lunatic predators will ignore.

Naturally the article presents the obligatory Everytown “statistics,” ignoring the fact that cited fears are based on hysteria rather than on the way peaceable gun owners conduct themselves. It’s basically the same unfounded “Dodge City/blood in the streets over fender-benders!” nightmare scenario the gun-grabbers presented back in the days before concealed carry became common in rational locales throughout the Republic. Their predictions of doom never did come true, no matter how much the hand-wringing stormcrows hoped they would.

Not that the article demonstrates any need to explain that to anyone who actually reads Teen Vogue for information on guns. And it’s not like they have anyone on staff qualified to weigh in on the issue anyway.

“That’s why is doing something about these troubling statistics,” Teen Vogue soldiers on, regardless. Suddenly a familiar theme emerges.  “Something must be done!” is hardly an original call to action. All the “best” gun-grabbers use it, always careful not to get too specific about what that “something” is, lest they tip their hand too early about end game goals.

In this case, the “something” is to convince young people who know nothing about the subject except what they’ve been indoctrinated on, to join a social media campaign. Supporters are urged to take “selfies” while flexing their biceps and to tweet them to their followers using a #GunsOut hashtag.

Now there’s a plan.

The Doers of Something have even produced a video, where they ask “Ever wonder what is and isn’t allowed on college campuses? College students find out.” Unsurprisingly, as a matter of fact I’d be surprised were it otherwise, we’re advised “Comments are disabled for this video.”

At least it’s slickly (professionally) produced. Recalling another anti-gun video, where Ceasefire USA tried to convince us actors were really potential gun customers (persuaded to renounce their wicked ways by the brilliance of anti-gun arguments), it’s fair to ask if these are really college students, or if we’re again being treated to performance ringers pretending to be just plain folks. It’s also fair to ask who’s footing the bill. claims “5,126,754 members,” so why their YouTube hits only number in the low thousands — two days after launch and with plenty of media coverage  — is something of a mystery. And while they’ve had undoubted earthshaking successes — like convincing retailers to discontinue a Caitlyn Jenner costume — it’s still not clear if that gives much bang for the buck to all their heavy-hitter sponsors.

We know from their most recent posted 1099 filing with the IRS that they claim 501(c)(3) status, meaning they’re a tax write-off for donors, which may explain a lot. We know people with lots of money are interested in seeing them grow.

While coming up with more details about who those people are, and especially who wants them to take on guns, is not yet clear, one takeaway is evident now: There’s money in getting people who don’t know any better to renounce their birthrights. What’s missing is common sense, and there’s a test DoSomething’s true-believing legions of hoplophobes can perform to prove that to themselves:

If you find yourself in a situation where a person who ignores the “No Guns” rule is on your campus anyway, walk up to him, make a muscle (or maybe two for twice the effect), and tell him “Guns out!” like you mean business. After all, you’re specifically being instructed to “demand” it.

Make sure you tweet the selfie.

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and also posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scott Wilson

It’s good you admit you don’t understand. Now you can be taught the “why” and perhaps learn something. 1) We oppose infringements on our rights because our rights are not to be infringed. That we even have to explain this is why there will always be resistance. Our rights are not honored or respected by those who would disarm us. 2) Sspecifically on “universal background checks,” we do not believe we should have to get a background check to transfer a firearm to a spouse, family member, or friend. 3) We also have no interest in a complete gun registry… Read more »


My personal experience is that many gun owners are more paranoid than the general public and less open to honest, rational discussions of gun issues.

My question is this: Why do so many gun owners fight the implementation of reasonable regulations? What’s wrong with mandatory background checks (without exception) and mandatory training and target practice? I mean, obtaining a driver license is harder to do than buying a gun. To me, that just isn’t rational.


My experience is that the truly paranoid, dishonest, and laughably ignorant side – not to mention being constantly wrong over and over again when predicting how loosening gun laws will cause murder to explode – of the debate consists of the gun banner side.

Why don’t we have mandatory background checks before posts like yours? How about each time you log on the internet to share your opinion that you undergo a background check and your name and info go into an electronic file? If you don’t have anything to hide, then you should not have a problem with it.

Wild Bill

Gee, Jack, just open with an general insult. That ought to help persuade people. Gun owners fight “…the implementation of reasonable regulations” because those regulations are not reasonable. There is no right to drive a motor vehicle, so… the various governments are empowered to regulate driver licensing all they want. Those governments could regulate private person driving right out of existence, if they wanted. There could be a day when only government employees are authorized to drive. Firearms, ownership of firearms, sale of firearms, gifting of firearms are all Constitutional Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights at the Second… Read more »


Thank you for proving my points.


They didn’t prove your point. If anything they countered your point and you proved theirs.

Declaring victory isn’t the same as earning it.


Sorry, idiot child, your points have not been proved.

You opened your comment with an insult, and then proceeded to ask questions which assumed that your viewpoint was the obviously correct one , i.e. that what the anti-2nd amendment folks wail about are “reasonable”.

Then, when other posters point out your fallacious thinking (confusing the right to self-defense with the privilege to drive a motor vehicle, you claim victory of some sort, like the proverbial chess-playing pigeon.

Please don’t vote or breed. you aren’t smart enough for either to end well.

Wild Bill

Hmmm, I only gave you the law and a hypothetical example. How do you figure that these prove your points?


Thank you for proving mine. Stick to left wing echo chambers if you are unable to do more than churn out talking points and unable to defend any of them. The same sort of echo chambers that predicted a mass explosion of crime and murder as conceal carry laws were passed in most states in the 90s and early 2000s, and have yet to admit how totally wrong they were. Your driver’s license analogy is also terribly flawed because in many states if one keeps their vehicle on their own private land – no license is required. I have seen… Read more »

Buck Redstone


I’ll go for your control and registration ideas if you go for mine like all your internet website visits being catalogued in a feral government database, along with all your interpersonal associations and relationships, e-mails as well as all articles and books you might read. If you have nothing to hide this should be fully permissible to you, right?

Bill Twist

Actually, I wish gun ownership and car ownership were more alike. You see, you’re equating two different things: Ownership, and public use. Apples and oranges, but let’s make the conversion so that we’re talking about the same things: 1. You can purchase a car with no background check, new or used, from a dealer or not. You don’t even need a driver’s license to buy and own one, and if you’re just going to use the car on your own private property (like a farm truck), you don’t need a license either. Neither do you need a license if you… Read more »


Also, do you oppose voter ID laws mandating voters show an ID before voting? Not even a bg check, but almost all of the people who scream about bg checks for gun purchases completely oppose voters from having to merely present an ID to vote. Why do you oppose reasonable voter id laws that the majority of the public favor?

Could that be because you are a giant hypocrite?

Phillip Evans

Symbolism over substance again.

But surprisingly, many anti-gun rights folks have actually said that real men only need their muscles to defend themselves. I suppose to them, men with physical health issues, those that are elderly, and those that are small in stature are not “real” men.

Even a “muscle-bound” man is not going to fare that well using only muscles against an armed criminal in the vast majority of circumstances.

Ah, the bliss of willful ignorance must be sublime for those who believe citizen disarmament is the key to being safe from criminals.


The same feminsts say that gender is a social construct, and not genetic in origin – which is why they support transgenders – so why say a man needs muscle to defend himself? We are all equal, so everyone can defend themselves the same regardless of gender. Oh, but don’t say mean things or interrupt a woman while speaking because that is bullying and misogny!


Everyone can troll the campaign by taking pics of guns with the hashtag….

David Codrea

You’re right. #GunsOut seems like the perfect hashtag to advocate for open carry.


Yet another stupid concept brought to us by the same folks who think race and gender are social constructs. And if they are going to select someone to pose, how about someone with some actual muscles instead of another effeminate pajama boy type?


That photo caption in reference to the idiot flexing his small biceps is GOLD. As an aside, I’m noticing a really disturbing trend of very young people running off on political causes. Just yesterday I saw something on the news out of Boston about high school kids as young as 15 walking out of class and into the streets to protest budget cuts in their school. Now this gun thing featuring kids in a kids’ magazine (or “young adult” as they’re called – a word trick to make us forget they are CHILDREN). Even in the name of a true… Read more »


“get them young and the possibilities are endless” is a phrase the politicians hold dearly, with unfortunate results.
i’m all for education, but any more, schools are just indoctrination centers for one thing or another. nothing more.

Wild Bill

Children don’t think these things up themselves. Someone behind the scenes is using these children for their own behind the scenes agenda. Why aren’t these children being protected. American society never used to let children be used this way. Who are the behind the scenes people that think using children this way is ethical?


Hashtag campaigns are about as effective as Weiner’s ‘private selfies’. LOL