Today our organization unveiled a new policy plan to eliminate armed intimidation from politics by prohibiting guns at Capitol buildings and grounds, sensitive government facilities, polling and vote counting locations, and protests on public property.

We’re already working closely with our allies in state legislatures, and we saw a related bill passed in Michigan and similar bills introduced in Vermont, Washington, and Virginia. We expect more given the horror we’ve seen on our TV screens.
The chaos and violence that took place at the Capitol last week was horrifying, but not surprising. @MomsDemand volunteers have been confronted by these armed insurrectionists in our communities ever since I started Moms Demand Action in 2012.
At rallies and marches, inside restaurants and grocery stores, and even in statehouses and at gun bill hearings, our volunteers have gone toe-to-toe with gun extremists seeking to intimidate and silence them.
In Virginia, armed men with rifles strapped to their backs have stood in the back of small hearing rooms inside the General Assembly, while our volunteers are in chairs in front of them, facing forward. They say it feels like the men could open fire on their backs at any moment.
In Texas, armed extremists, who bypass statehouse security scanners and lines if they have a concealed carry permit, harass our volunteers as they meet with lawmakers (who, by the way, had to install office panic buttons after confrontations with armed extremists.
And in Colorado Springs at a George Floyd rally attended by our volunteers, men dressed in combat fatigues and holding military-style rifles - like those used by military snipers - stood on top of a parking garage, their guns trained on the crowd of peaceful protesters below.
This dangerous behavior has become a frightening trend. Armed white supremacists at Black Lives Matter marches to intimidate protesters. Armed insurrectionists at statehouses to protest COVID shut downs. And armed vigilantes at polling places to protest the election outcome.
Armed intimidation is gun violence. In 2019, far-right groups were responsible for 2/3 of domestic terrorist attacks and plots. Every nation is home to dangerous ideologies: racists, bigots, misogynists and conspiracy theorists. Only America gives them easy access to arsenals.
Extremists have held our democracy at gunpoint. The Second Amendment was never meant by the Founders to be used to silence free speech, to change lawmakers’ minds, or to alter the outcome of an election.
But the NRA has perverted the Second Amendment to juice gun sales and prop up their political power. Right now, prominent NRA board members are promoting conspiracy theories and posting content threatening members of Congress with “execution by firing squad.”
.@MomsDemand volunteers won't back down from this fight –– and neither will the new administration or the gun sense majority in Congress. We must banish armed intimidation from our politics, and beat the ideology, politicians, and organizations that led to it in the first place.

More from Legal

BREAKING: at least six men that provided security for Roger Stone entered the #Capitol during the siege, per a @nytimes visual investigation.

All six are associated with the far-right #OathKeepers militia.

THREAD 1/

Story: https://t.co/abZlcVyaR6


2/ On January 5th, Stone appeared at the Supreme Court, glad-handing and being driven in a go-kart. Later he attended a rally near the White House.

As the @nytimes team shows, his security entourage featured a host of #OathKeepers...


3/ In the morning of the 6th, Stone stood outside the Willard InterContinental hotel, again flanked by men associated with the #OathKeepers.

Some of them, like Rob Minuta, have been named in prior


4/ Interesting detail: while scrutinizing the video of Roger Stone I spotted Rudy Giuliani exiting the same hotel.

Giuliani is accompanied by a man wearing the same outfit as Trump supporter John Eastman & other not-yet ID'd people.

Video source: https://t.co/Rure8TiQTp


5/ Now to the #Capitol: We see a several of Roger Stone's #OathKeeper guards amidst a larger group yelling at police. Video surfaced by the @CTExposers team.👇👇

https://t.co/NWsONDz0OA
GP State Department diplomats work for Pompeo, not the other way around. They should shut their yaps or quit.

Also, it's telling how much the horrible, illegal attacks on the Capitol have made establishment DC and its permanent bureaucracy quake in their boots.


GP The bureaucrats have always assumed they were untouchable, unassailable, protected. They assumed things would never change and that people in the hinterlands could safely be ignored forever because they're backwards hick Jesus-loving gun clingers and too dumb to listen to.

GP Government's overall disregard for ordinary Americans from treating us like bottomless wallets to trying to force us to believe as they do to ignoring basic legal and constitutional restraints on their actions built resentment over time and DC was blind to it.

GP When the hicks from the sticks got Trump elected, DC fought back against Trump and by extension them with everything at its disposal. Media pushed made up crap to hamstring Trump. Biden and Obama secretly used government to torment and assail an incoming administration.

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
1/ Here’s a list of conversational frameworks I’ve picked up that have been helpful.

Please add your own.

2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you


3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.

“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”

“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”

4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:

“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”

“What’s end-game here?”

“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”

5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:

“What would the best version of yourself do”?