.

One Millon Moms for Gun Control Becomes "Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America"

Grassroots Movement Re-Brands to Support Long-Term Mission

One Million Moms for Gun Control announced Wednesday that it will now be known as Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

The fast-growing grassroots movement is changing its name two months after it was formed in order to better define its mission: to urge legislators to take action now on new and stronger common-sense gun laws. In addition, the new name will help reduce the likelihood of any confusion with similarly named organizations.

“Getting weapons of war off our streets is an uphill battle, but the only way we’re going to get this done is if members of Congress hear directly from parents, teachers, law enforcement and doctors – the citizens who understand all too well what gun violence is doing to our country,” said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, author of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. “I applaud the leadership of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, and I am grateful for the grassroots commitment of moms all across this country to saving lives and helping to pass common-sense gun laws. Now is the time for action.”

Moms Demand Action’s middle-ground solutions to the escalating problem of gun violence in the United States are straightforward:
1) Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

2) Require background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases.

3) Report the sale of large quantities of ammunition to the ATF, and ban online sales of ammunition.
4) Counter gun industry lobbyists’ efforts to weaken gun laws at the state level.

Since forming on Dec. 15, 2012, Moms Demand Action has received important input from stakeholders on its name and mission. This input will enable the organization to achieve its long-term mission to build support for new and stronger gun laws at the federal and state levels.

"This name change recognizes that reducing gun violence requires a comprehensive approach that focus on everything from background checks and assault magazine limits to mental health and our culture's glorification of violence,” said California Rep. Mike Thompson, chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. “Working together, we can put policies in place that both respect the Second Amendment rights of responsible gun owners and make our schools, communities and country safer."

Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said, “We are heartened by how quickly we’ve grown and how central we have become to ‘gun sense’ efforts in America. Like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, our mission is to motivate and mobilize moms to encourage their legislators to support common-sense legislation. Our new name and the term ‘gun sense’ reinforces that there is a middle ground on solutions to the epidemic of gun violence in America.”

First references to Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America in articles should use the formal name. Secondary references can use the shortened version, Moms Demand Action.

About Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America
Much like Mothers Against Drunk Driving was created to change laws regarding drunk driving, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (www.momsdemandaction.org) was created to build support for common-sense gun legislation.

The nonpartisan grassroots movement of American mothers is demanding new and stronger solutions to lax gun laws and loopholes that jeopardize the safety of our children and families.

In just two months, the organization has tens of thousands of members with more than 80 chapters across the United States.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

COSMO P February 25, 2013 at 10:52 AM
SANDRA YOU GO GIRL> You have more class in your pinky than this Archie person. NO DICK Chaney is the poster boy for the liberal LOONS like you Archie for the cost of a gallon of gas as you say was his fault as other liberal loons that think like you.. So whats the dems excuse now? Today i filled up and had the pleasure of paying 4.21 a gallon. So much for the OBAMA CROWD and his do nothing cronies and supporters like you. So Archie why is the economy in the tank not only on the federal level but also in every state that has a LOON PROGRESSIVE DEM GOVERNOR. Seems like you progressive DEMS like you are on the receiving line for federal perks are growing by leaps and bounds. Got it Chaney and Bush were responsible for high energy costs. You beat all you know that. Dems like you do not have a clue. By the way are you on the OBAMA PLAN? You know the federal pay me for not working PLAN? Dems what a bunch of crack pots!
COSMO P February 25, 2013 at 10:55 AM
WOW A LIBERAL LOON ARCHIE BASHING GAYS> THIS IS A MOMENT IN HISTORY THE LIBERAL LOONS WILL BE SHOCKED.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 25, 2013 at 02:59 PM
Manny, If indeed the 'radical right-wingers have ruined the GOP', would you say that the 'far-left extremist Socialists have ruined the Democratic Party'?
Donald Borsch Jr. February 25, 2013 at 03:04 PM
"Gun Owners Demand Common Sense About Legal Guns In America". Hmmm. I like it.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 25, 2013 at 04:49 PM
Manny, You said: "Winning sides is for sports, governing is not a sport." Agreed, wholeheartedly. Good politics has never equaled good government. This is why I am a Registered Independent with strong Libertarian leanings with a Conservative flavor. I simply ask for proper Constitutional governance at all levels, be it local, State, or Federal. Our elected officials should focus on governance, and all societal issues should be the chore of society to determine, without political interference. Btw, thanks for commenting at WR2A, Manny. You and I seem to have many commonalities.
Sandra February 25, 2013 at 05:44 PM
Manny-Obama extended the Patriot Act. A court found Obama's recess appointments unconstitutional. Have you ever seen a President sue a state? This president is an instigator and if you don't see that you are in denial or towing the party line. The democrats are phenomenal when they rally around each other. You do not want to hear it from me so listen to a liberals view of Obama http://ivn.us/opinion/2012/11/06/a-liberal-argument-against-barack-obama/
Steve February 25, 2013 at 05:57 PM
You should add Legal drug use to that list. I sure down't want any Prozac poppers having easy access to a firearm.
Steve February 25, 2013 at 06:00 PM
Jarod Loughner, was a "law abiding" citizen right up to the point where he pulled the trigger. So was Dorner and most of the other mass shooting culprits.
Concerned Parent February 25, 2013 at 06:20 PM
It's obvious, at least on this board, that it is impossible to come to a middle ground when it comes to any form of gun control, no matter how reasonable or minimally impacting to responsible gun owners it may be. In essence, these gun owners want no change when it clips or ammunition. In there mind, the problem is not in the gun but the person. Which is a valid argument to a point. It's tragic that they live in such fear, especially in a nation that is free. Or perhaps that expressed paranoia is just a facade in order to justify their thirst for these high-capacity magazines. Whatever it is, or what drives it, their focus is on themselves. There's a quote that says volumes, despite coming from all people but Dr. Seuss. “UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” So with that being said, I wish those like brutus, borsch, cosmo, and ahhhnony-wa da-wa-da a joyous day.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 25, 2013 at 06:47 PM
Bye Ed.
brutus February 26, 2013 at 04:09 PM
Ed, since reasons for wanting high capacity magazines won't satisfy you, which is fine, perhaps you can tell us how banning high capacity magazines will solve anything. recent data shows that 97% of gun murders involve one victim. in the remaining 3%, very few would be classified as "mass" killings. and in the minute few mass killings we have had over the years (Columbine and VA Tech included) the assailants did not use high capacity magazines. they simple brought a LOT of lower capacity magazines. and in the extreme rare cases of mass shootings where high capacity magazines were used, all you are hoping with your ban is to save a couple of those who were killed, not nearly all of them. so out of the 11,000 or so gun deaths last year, your ban would have saved what, maybe 5 of them, if that? If this doesn't show people that the goal here is not to save lives, rather it is to slowly dismantle our rights, then I don't know what else to say.
sebastian dangerfield February 26, 2013 at 04:34 PM
Ed P Says Ed P. 5:25 pm on Monday, February 25, 2013 Paul McQueen: "That's like saying the carnage at Hiroshima was not a bomb issue". . . . If Killer Bees were flying all over inside the school in Sandy Hook... I'd say he had a Killer Bee problem. If someone brought IN a Killer Bee, released it INTO the class room.... do we still have a Bee problem? Wow man-you just dont get it? Im amazed at the inability to think. Truly amazing. Just to answer your question--if sandy hook had a single bee problem -then the answer is ummm no. But Ed, if there were 9,000 Bee killings because of the ease through which to obtain killer bees and the rate at which people were using these bees to kill other human beings--then, ummm yes ed, we would then have a bee problem. Astounding that the concept of rate of incidence eludes you. But go ahead, try to act as though it's the other side that is being ridiculous. Or, if you as a conservatitve , of whom preach personal responsibility, would be best to acknowledge your flawed logic and just say--yeah, you are right. I thought about this wrong.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 26, 2013 at 04:53 PM
brutus, Do you have a link to this source? Or is it composite data collected from many sources? These numbers are amazing.
brutus February 26, 2013 at 05:02 PM
Donald, I got my 97%/3% number from a CNN article from two years ago (after the Tucson shooting): "Research by Koper and others shows that in the majority of gun homicides in the U.S., only a few shots are fired. Only about 3% of all criminal homicides involve multiple killings." http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/12/cook.ludwig.gun.control/index.html I got my info on Columbine and VA Tech from here: http://www.policymic.com/articles/24263/gun-control-facts-why-a-high-capacity-magazine-ban-would-not-prevent-mass-shootings and I made further inferences with the info presented here: http://news.yahoo.com/high-capacity-ammunition-magazines-numbers-175300433.html which states that over the last 30 years, 62 mass shootings were analyzed and only 31 of them used high capacity magazines. again that's over 30 years.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 26, 2013 at 05:31 PM
brutus, Many thanks, sir! It shows great diligence and integrity on your part to be able to cite sources so willingly. Bravo. Now off to do some digging....;)
Edmund Burke February 26, 2013 at 05:36 PM
Ed, I have also answered your questions regarding mag size (and I pleased to see you dropped clip from you posts). Now if you would answer mine, if reducing the size of the mag doesn't effect the lethality of the weapon, why do it?
Concerned Parent February 26, 2013 at 06:07 PM
Edmund, the reality is that any proposed legislation that serves to take a gun out of the hands of an American will infringe on the 2nd Amendment. Period. That's the reality. The only way we can establish some semblance of control on any semi-automatic weapon is to limit the capacity of the magazines it accommodates. By reducing its size (capacity), you will be successful in limiting it's firing capabilities. My understanding of the firing rate of some of these weapons is approx 6 rounds per second. If you do the math on how many rounds you can shoot without changing your clip, it's clear that by simply lowering the legal capacity of it's magazine, will successfully limit it's impact. That's been my position this entire time. It's a rationale middle ground that both preserves the rights of Americans to continue to own these types of weapons and also address the issue of high-capacity magazines. My frustration surrounds this obstructionist attitude by some gun owners who refuse to acknowledge that this action does not take the gun out of their hands. If anything, it puts better controls in place, so only responsible gun owners (such as themselves) are able to carry without issue.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 26, 2013 at 06:16 PM
@Ed, Wow, sir. That was actually a concise and salient response you gave to Edmund. Bravo. Allow me to present this for the sake of looking at the issue in as many ways as possible: Some folks believe the Second Amendment exists and was written solely as a defense against governmental tyranny, meaning it has nothing to do with hunting, sport shooting, collecting, and even home defense, but it addresses only arming the citizenry against governmental craziness. Now then, putting aside your belief that people who think like this are paranoid, can you see how nervous they can get by telling them they cannot have the same gun capabilities as the government, and that they may construe your call for smaller magazines as merely a ploy to defang them in case they need to bite back? I am asking this openly and with genuine interest.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 26, 2013 at 06:21 PM
Ed, Also, imagine you want a car that goes 120 MPH. You want it. You know how amazing it would be to have it. And then along comes the government who says, "Sure, Ed, you can have your car. But first, we're gonna put a governor on the engine so it only can reach speeds of 65 MPH. It's all in the interest of public safety, of course." Obviously you would be a bit concerned. I mean, you wanted a car that can go 120 MPH. Now you are being told you can have that car, as long as it is limited to only going 65 MPH. Sure, sure, you can have your AR15, no problem. But first, well, we're gonna modify the magazines you can use with it to 10 rounds each. In the interest of public safety, of course. Did that present an easy-to-understand analogy?
Concerned Parent February 26, 2013 at 06:30 PM
@Donald, I've read your response and still sense your level of paranoia, which your are free to feel and express. IMO, our freedoms are not based on fear or some overwhelming suspicion that we will wake up in the morning surrounded by gov't agents. I believe they are in place to empower and protect people to express, speak, and defend themselves freely. It also states ideals that go beyond one's simple freedom. It surrounds its understanding that with these freedoms, Americans can work together to address issues to derive a solution that works to benefit all Americans. Your views, specific to your rights surrounding arms are valid, however you are looking at it thru blinders. When it comes to ANY broad-reaching legislation, we need to look at things from a holistic perspective. That 10,000 foot view to see how it impacts ALL Americans. That's the basis behind my viewpoint. It's not rocket-science.
Edmund Burke February 26, 2013 at 06:48 PM
ED, Thanks for responding. The 2A protects the citizens right to bear arms for two purposes. Defense against tyranny and individual self defense. Donald has clearly stated how a magazine limit would affect the former. On the self defense front, I think your argument is flawed. In that you assure me that limiting mag size doesn't effect the weapons utility for self defense yet it will reduce its utility for mass murders. I don't think limiting mag size is going to make anyone safer, it doesn't make any practical sense. So if what you propose doesn't solve the problem of mass murders you must have another purpose in mind. Can you see my point and why we resist the mag limit proposals. - on a tech note, semi automatics can fire 1 round for every trigger pull, see how many times you can do it.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 26, 2013 at 08:05 PM
Ed, So indeed were then the Founders paranoid when they wrote The Second Amendment? Is it outdated and irrelevant given today's benevolent government who exists to serve us faithfully, and should it be stricken from The Bill of Rights as no longer being needed?
Donald Borsch Jr. February 26, 2013 at 08:11 PM
If the talk of limiting magazine size is done for the interest of public safety, then how is this not going to have an adverse effect on those of us who do want public safety? It's not as if Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner had public safety in mind. But we do as Second Amendment supporters. We actually have the highest level of public safety in mind. Statism demands that we believe what it does is for our benefit, even if we don't believe it. Scary stuff. Telling me it's for my own good and the good of others to limit my gun-owning rights is indeed a scary, slippery slope towards an America that should not exist.
Concerned Parent February 26, 2013 at 09:33 PM
It's a bit cavalier to presume what was going thru the minds of the founders when they drafted the Constitution. It was a different time and the state of our nation was not as it is now...OR IS IT?.... Magazine size vs. Adam Lanza...If the argument against gun control surrounds Adam Lanza's mental state, then the only way we can ensure it does not happen again is to implement stricter and broader background checks that include an evaluation of an applicant's medical history. I've continued to hear the argument that people kill and not guns. So to that point, we should focus on the ability of Americans to purchase weapons by implementing excruciatingly strict measures. If you are a responsible gun owner then you really should have nothing to worry about. It is your right after all and unless you have something you do not want to disclose acquiring a weapon should not be a problem.
Concerned Parent February 26, 2013 at 09:35 PM
With all the paranoia being expressed on this board, it makes me question if we really won the Cold War.
Most Popular Poster February 27, 2013 at 01:11 AM
Maybe you were thinking of Debbie Does Dallas.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 27, 2013 at 02:14 AM
Ed, It's not cavalier of me to presume that since you feel I am paranoid for supporting the Second Amendment, that the Founders, who wrote it to begin with and with very clear intent, were not paranoid as well.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 27, 2013 at 02:16 AM
Ed, You said: "So to that point, we should focus on the ability of Americans to purchase weapons by implementing excruciatingly strict measures. If you are a responsible gun owner then you really should have nothing to worry about. It is your right after all and unless you have something you do not want to disclose acquiring a weapon should not be a problem." ------------------------ How many hoops would you and your kind have us jump through, Ed? When will it end? Or will you simply continue to add and add upon them in the hopes of frustrating those of us who should not be punished with endless red tape to exercise our Second Amendment right? Tedious.
Donald Borsch Jr. February 27, 2013 at 02:24 AM
Manny, You presume much. You haven't a clue as to who and what I am. How I invest my time is of my concern and not yours. However, I am hoping you now feel better for having a moment or two to air your critique of me. With that, I would say Good Day, sir.
Concerned Parent February 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM
Donald. I have one word for your viewpoint...MYOPIC

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »