Ammo For Sale

« « Climategate to get congressional attention? | Home | Kinda like that car from robocop » »

An unsuccessful gun control group merges with gun control group you’ve never heard of

Looks Gonzo is merging with some group I’ve never heard of:

Two gun violence prevention organizations, Freedom States Alliance and States United to Prevent Gun Violence are joining forces to strengthen state-level advocacy efforts to save lives.

Freedom States Alliance (FSA) will merge with States United to Prevent Gun Violence (SUPGV) and assume the States United to Prevent Gun Violence name effective immediately.

The mission of the organization, SUPGV, is to support existin (sic) state-based gun violence prevention organizations and to expand the network of groups working to reduce gun violence throughout the United States.

Update: Joe:

In tough economic times you frequently see mergers of the less healthy organizations with the more healthy. There are other reasons for mergers but when times are tough it’s a pretty good bet that one or both of the organizations is about to collapse.

Doubleplus fun: Scott Vogel’s interview. Heh.

9 Responses to “An unsuccessful gun control group merges with gun control group you’ve never heard of”

  1. DC Handgun Info Says:

    Freedom [ha!] States Alliance (liar! liar! liar!) was funded in 2007 to the tune of $150,000 by the Joyce Foundation (former employer of Barack Obama).

    Note FSA’s Orwellian distortion of the word “Freedom” where they want to curtail your freedom to carry or defend yourself. They also routinely use the loaded term “hidden” where we use the neutral word “concealed” re CCW. Source: joycefdn dot org.

    Brady Campaign (the other bunch of antigun liars) often uses the term “forced” where CCW laws give you the OPTION or CHOICE to carry a defensive arm:

    “The Brady Campaign opposes laws pushed by the gun lobby to force law enforcement to allow virtually anyone to carry loaded hidden handguns in public.”
    Source: bradycampaign dot org

    But Brady and FSA both want the government to FORCE YOU to be disarmed, while criminals — by definition — flout the law and carry when they want to!!

    It’s crazy-making, isn’t it?

  2. DC Handgun Info Says:

    BTW, doesn’t “SUPGV” roll off the tongue:

    SUP-GUH-VH (Sup-gov??)

    They should really call themselves Statists Increasing Criminal Kleptocracy* (“SICK”).

    *Government by those who seek chiefly status and personal gain at the expense of the governed; also: a particular government of this kind (Merriam-Webster dot com)

  3. EMP Says:

    Anyone ever play the board game go? I’m reminded of the tactical proverb from that game that states if you connect one small, weak group to another, all you end up with is a BIG weak group that now you can’t let die because it’d be too costly.

  4. Stranger Says:

    The part I am curious about is who was funding these “two groups.” I seriously doubt that the public is donating enough to anti-gun outfits to keep one of these in postage – so I wonder if this “merger” is just an expense saving move. On the part of – ?

    And what they think they will get out of it if guns are banned.

    Stranger

  5. Steve Says:

    Next they’ll break away from the Judean People’s Front.

  6. thirdpower Says:

    They were listed as combining as well as two Illinois groups.

    Stranger. It’s all funding from the Joyce Foundation. They run probably about half of the anti-gun ‘grassroots’ groups in the US.

    http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2010/01/feeling-pinch.html

  7. thirdpower Says:

    Stranger,

    It’s all funded by the Joyce Foundation coffers. Not a single ‘grassroots’ among them.

    I actually noted this last month along w/ the combining of two Joyce funded Illinois puppets.

  8. Sailorcurt Says:

    The mission of the organization, SUPGV, is to…expand the network of groups working to reduce gun violence throughout the United States.

    Um.

    Didn’t they just CONTRACT “the network of groups working to reduce gun violence…” by one?

    Seems to be counter to their stated purpose doesn’t it?

  9. Ted Says:

    sailorcurt, Yes, in a rational world, yes, they did. However, I don’t think gun control types have been in a rational world for quite awhile. More like, off in their own little world, where cars run on unicorn farts, etc, etc.