Everytown Critique a Sign of ‘Trouble in Paradise’

By David Codrea

Per “droves” of dissident ex-“members,” Everytown supporting the convention of “a steadfast ally of the National Rifle Association and defender of racially-motivated police brutality” is cause to quit. (Fraternal Order of Police/Facebook)
David Codrea in his natural habitat.

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “As a gun violence survivor, I feel betrayed by Everytown,” Kate Ranta complained in The Huffington Post, objecting to the gun-grabbing group’s sponsorship of the Fraternal Order of Police conference. “Everytown volunteers like me are now leaving the organization in droves, disgusted that our leadership would partner with an organization that has been a steadfast ally of the National Rifle Association and defender of racially-motivated police brutality. “

While it’s nice to know there’s trouble in paradise, it would be helpful if Ranta could quantify the term “droves.” Based on the pathetic numbers Everytown subsidiary Moms Demand Action manages to muster at NRA Annual Meetings, they don’t have that many “members” to lose. But give her credit — she did a slick job establishing a logical fallacy there, the one that conflates NRA as an ally with racists, right underneath a photo of Donald Trump.

Finding political common ground aside (NRA has a substantial Law Enforcement Division), the two groups have plenty of differences, and FOP has had a mixed record on citizen disarmament going back at least to the Handgun Control, Inc. days. They’ll also on occasion share interests, as when FOP joined ATF in opposing the release of trace data. Using Ranta’s “logic,” ATF must not be anti-gun enough, which kind of gives you an idea of infringements she’d like to see.

Here’s what’s not enough for her:

“Our laws right now definitely don’t protect women and children. When I was granted a restraining order against my estranged husband, police seized handguns and shotguns from the house. A judge arrested him in court for violating that restraining order. He was booked, a mug shot was taken, so he had a record. How was he able to obtain the gun he used to shoot us? Where was the protection for us?”

What more is there, besides a total ban for everyone?  I mean, it’s not like some people might take responsibility for protecting themselves.

But Ranta has more talking points to parrot:

“I’ve never been a fan of guns. I didn’t grow up with guns in the house. I’ve never understood America’s fascination with and vehement defense of guns. I don’t understand the gun lobby, and 2nd Amendment supporters who believe that by passing gun control laws that make sense and properly protect people, the government is coming to take people’s guns away. That just makes no sense at all. Nor does the ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’ mantra or ‘the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun’ rhetoric. Those are sound bites from a gun lobby that makes a lot of money by keeping people in fear that their guns will be confiscated.”

In other words, she admits she’s ignorant about people who reject having their choices taken away and who refuse to be victims.  She knows first-hand that those “laws that make sense” don’t protect. Despite ridiculing confiscation fears, she saw  government seize guns from her ex (without full due process), and even that wasn’t enough. And there was no “good guy with a gun” to protect her, because as she admitted, she grew up in a gun-free home and her defenseless father was unable to do anything but get shot along with her.

This isn’t so much being unsympathetic as wondering how much wrong a person can go around spouting without realizing they contradict everything they say practically every time they try to make another point. In a way, it’s understandable that such a horrible experience would produce an overwhelmingly emotional response, and the natural human reaction is to feel sympathy and to want to help.

In that spirit, here’s hoping the reality that police can never be there in time to protect her sinks in, and she accepts that she is the primary person responsible for defending herself and her young son. Here’s hoping she admits the fact that there are tools that can help with that, and that she gets the training to keep and bear them competently. And perhaps it will also occur to her that the abuser who shot her had his guns confiscated and that still didn’t work – and there is no “next step” after that.

And let’s hope she considers the implications of her own words:

“For too long, gun control groups like Everytown have implemented top-down organizational models that treat gun violence prevention advocates like servants and gun violence survivors like fundraising fodder, giving us little or no say in our own advocacy. That must end now.”

It won’t, Ms. Ranta. Bloomberg’s money, Bloomberg’s show. He’s the one who approved the hirelings at national and set up individual nonprofit filings with state attorneys general throughout the land, and those were all ultimately plugged into a handful of his New York apparatchiks. Plus, come on: the guy wants to control salt and sodas, too—you didn’t realize he’s a control freak?

That should provide gun owner rights advocates at least a ray of hope, because we’ve seen the Moms Demand faction getting more and more chummy with radicals. Add in Shannon Watts setting herself up to carpetbag her way into a Colorado Congressional seat, and we may see more schisms develop and a “feminist” rebellion against the Bloomberg “patriarchy.”

On the plus side for Everytown, they won't have to issue any refunds for “members” who jump ship. Still, one unanswered question remains:

If you really believe “racially-motivated police brutality” is widespread and systemic, why would you ultimately want the police to be the “only ones” with guns?

About David Codrea:

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

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 19 thoughts on “Everytown Critique a Sign of ‘Trouble in Paradise’

    1. Why doesn’t she use the same “logic” against illegal immigrants? I bet she supports sanctuary cities, amnesty, refugees from third world nations, mass immigration, opposes building a wall, etc.

    2. With all the misfortune Ms Ranta alleges how come she hasn’t realized as yet that laws do not protect anybody. She needs to learn to handle her own rat killing and quit trying to shift that responsibility to others. None are so blind as those who refuse to see. I have no sympathy for her.

    3. Why is she preaching to the choir given all the sorted life challenges she has had. Some people do not learn from their mistakes, or big mouth, and bloomturd has a live one here because she appears to be too stupid to know the difference between good and bad.

    4. Another thoroughly entertaining article by Dave Codrea! She has the court take his property, and wonders why he shoots at her? She is just the center of the universe.

    5. Well crafted, mathematically correct logic. It’s rarely seen these days. In addition to other comments here, I find it interesting that we see much leftist exploitation of unfortunate and preventable shootings with very little by conservatives. Case in point, the horrible murder of Kate Steinle. I’d guess fewer conservatives suffer these kinds of shootings because they’re armed (not so much in California). But I’d also suggest that exploitation of such events may produce monetary profit. While both victims have “Go Fund Me” accounts, Bloomberg, Soros, et al., have the wherewithal to pay colossal sums but only to leftists. Personal testimonials and on-the-road support of leftist agendas can be very rewarding. I’d add that Ranta is behind on child support for her older son, previously awarded to her first husband, so perhaps her monetary needs are greater. At the end, seems Ranta would blame the shovel for an unwanted hole. By the way, last I heard, no politician met with Steinle’s family to offer condolences.

    6. Given her attitudes and behavior, I can begin to see why her “ex” might want to do her violence…but I digress.
      I have found that many folks begin to “get it” when facing the logical argument that it impossible for ANY LAW to protect ANYONE. It is simply impossible for a mere law to protect a human being. The MOST we can hope to get from passage of a law, is an increase in the personal “cost” of engaging in the banned behavior. But this is fraught with exceptions. For example, the prospective criminal must:
      1) think he is likely to get caught (ask any criminal-they don’t),
      2) think he will be convicted and punished (if caught – and modern progressive policies make this less and less likely)
      3) think that the punishment is more than he is willing to pay for the prospective crime’s “benefit”
      In addition, punishment is a non-factor for terrorists or mentally deranged people (prospective “mass shooters”), who typically expect/plan to die in the course of committing the crime, or for those with severe “impulse control issues,” who don’t get that moment to consider if they should “do this” just before acting on an aggressive impulse.
      So, the whole idea that safety can be conferred on the public merely by passing a law is a no starter.

    7. Means, opportunity, intent. The three essential elements of any crime.

      If her ex, having suffered entirely too much of the sort of rhetoric and emotion she displays in her current rants, decided to take action. He had the intent, created the opportunity, ahd had his preferred means… until the coppers came and took them away. He was, after some search, able to procure a replacement. Had he NOT been able to find one of those, there exist quite a number of alternate “means”, all readily available to anyone for just a few dollars. Any thrift store will likely have a stndard cheal claw hammer or small hatchet for well under five dollars, no background check needed.

      Thus all the fuss and empty words attempting to disarm the rest ofus NEVER can prevent a person with opportunity and intent from procuring SOME means… even the recent rise of Antifa Bats proves that.

      So the entire premise of the Mad Mamas is a farce. They are merely too dense (or too well paid) to “get it”. SOMEONE needs to get after the soros, er, squeeze me, the source of their funding. Such an event will produce the twin benefits of the disappearance of the Mad Mamas, AND the sudden loss of interest recently displayed by antifa/nevertrumpistas/alt-right and their ilk.

    8. Its called transference. People who hate guns and want to disarm everyone in the face of overwhelming evidence that criminals will continue to be criminals no mater what laws you pass. People who suffer from transference syndrome fear guns because they themselves are unstable and would shoot someone over a parking space. They can not rectify this in their own minds because the thought of killing someone over such a trivial mater disturbs them so they transfer these feelings of hostility to others. Their feelings and thinking are very mixed up, this is why gun haters are so illogical. These individuals need to be medicated.

    9. Ms. Ranta is typical professional victim, she complains about restraining order and being shot, but failed to protect herself and her children at all. A piece or paper means nothing to a person enraged by whatever circumstances. The best defense was ignored by her, a hot piece of lead moving at the speed of sound. So now she wants to deny other people facing the same threat, the ability to protect themselves? Ms. Ranta is truly a vile woman.

      1. Yup.. she’s on a nasty whinge of her own making. I can only imagine the sick dynamic she has pushed on her former husband. No wonder he wanted out… and that permanently enough to try and “deal” with her.

        She seems to be the type that takes zero responsibility for her own security…. sitting idly but not silently by as “other” are left to take care of her….. after the commonly tolerated fashion ascribed to government.

        She should just sit down, shut up, and continue to “trust” the duly established government to “protect” her after THEIR fashion.. OR, grow a spine and do as Mr. Codrea so wisely suggests. She faces two options: SHE is responsible for her own security, or she can continue to abdicate that to others.

        I know which spot MY nickel will be on.

    10. She overlooks one small item called the US Constitution that guarantees its people the right to bear arms. Its as simple as that. You dont have to understand anything else. If you dont agree with it then either go about your business and let me and my friends carry firearms for self defense or find another country that shares your views. Both Canada and Mexico come to mind (look how well that works for Mexico BTW)

      1. Ask those who live in states like California, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Oregon, New Jersey, and others, how that Constitutional guarantee is working for them. Unless and until the Supreme Court rules once and for all in favor of the absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, the 2nd Amendment will be treated as the red headed step child of the Bill of Rights. If the incremental attack on this right is successful, gone are the days of gun ownership as we know it.

        1. The Supreme Court is not the sole arbiter of conventionality; that was an arrogated power – subversion. Every officer swears to defend the Constitution, and that means ignore unconstitutional laws, not mindlessly OBEY courts. “I was just following orders” doesn’t cut it. Those who don’t take the oath seriously shouldn’t take the paycheck.

        2. @ras,There is no profit in free men. There is no profit in respecting their Constitutional Rights. There is no profit in letting the truth be known.

    11. As a MH professional, if the behavior of Ms. Ranta is as revealed here, I believe she needs therapy for her anxiety. Well said David. You picked up the nuances of all of this very well.

    12. This points out the hypocrisy and stupidity of the gun control “Soccer Moms”. Hypocrisy in the fact that they say they want common sense gun laws, when they really want total confiscation; and stupidity in the fact that they can’t seem to get it through their “thick as a brick” heads that is someone has a mind set of doing a crime of violence, and wants to perpetrate it in the most effective way they can – they will be able to get a gun and they won’t obtain it through legal means (its called the criminal element for a reason). Ergo when they do not have the means to defend themselves, all of a sudden everyone else failed them ( don’t look at the primary failure in the mirror ) and everyone else is to blame. A classic rule of “Victimization for Losers … One – oh – one”. God help us all that this is what American society is coming to.

      Not me! The primary responsibility for the safety of my family and myself rests squarely on my shoulders.
      “Self defense is a primal law of nature which I have not surrendered by caveat to any other entity nor would I if I could.” – John Adams

    Comments are closed.