This is an exchange that happened in Twitter. I saw this faked ad picture posted and I let the people know. I was amazed at the reply from the original individual:

Mina Smith 1

I intervened:
Mina Smith 2

I applied a wee bit of logic, not much as you don’t want to scare idiots..and it went downhill from there:Mina Smith 3She admits or at least acknowledges that the photo is questionable but does not care because of the message and she is in favor of being a scummy liar just like the opposition. But she has reasons:
Mina Smith 4Ladies and gents, I do not care how much you dislike the opposition or how much of a defender of the Second Amendment you think you are: We Do Not Need To Lie To Win.

We don’t need to make fake ads or come up with bullshit stats or wave a (fake) bloody shirt as we have truth on our side. If you cannot take the time to properly do research on our enemies and use their words and actions against them, just shut the hell up, watch Divorce Court, much on your Smuckers’ Goober-covered rice cakes and leave the rest of us do the work.

Seriously, Don’t help.

UPDATE: Mina is asking for proof instead of her providing the original screen cap. I found 2 more fake ads using the same rape theme and they are related to a fake/parody account:

fake account

fake account 2


But we have this words of warning from a President:

Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

11 thoughts on “Dear @minasmith64 : Seriously, stop helping us.”
  1. You have provided zero proof that the ad is fake. It is completely consistent with the ads that were being produced by them in Jan-March timeframe & I pulled it, at the time from their TL. Your opinion holds no water.

    1. Then you can point us to where it is published in their Facebook page.
      I have been Following Moms Demand since pretty much their creation and I never saw that ad. You probably got hoodwinked by a fake Moms account and since it fits your petty idiocy, you keep swearing it is real.

    2. When determining whether something is fake, it is the burden of the one claiming it is genuine to show the proof.

      When arguing a negative one can often only give evidence of absence and absence of evidence. But proof of a negative is often fundamentally absent, since that is often the very nature of the “negative”…that it doesn’t exist. But proof of a positive is not only possible, it’s required to consider that positive a fact. Therefore it’s the one claiming the positive (that it is from momsdemand) that has the burden of proof for the theory. If you present the assertion that the graphic is from momsdemand, then if true there will be evidence of it being from them (a link to it in their timeline, perhaps). Without such evidence you’re providing an unsourced fact that you’re claiming has a source while being unable to provide that source…which pretty much makes your assertion rejected as factual.

  2. Miguel, I am 100% with you on this. The ad is worded in a way that is obviously overbearingly offensive to women, a mistake that MDA would not be foolish enough to make (even if they did, it is wise to seriously question its validity). It definitely looks phony, and I agree we must stay honest in our efforts at all times.

    Mina, as I mentioned, the ad looks fake to me, and I’m sure to many others who have seen the PAs MDA puts out. It is a big accusation to lay on MDA, an extraordinary claim if you will. As you know, such claims require extraordinary evidence. If you can provide such extraordinary evidence, then you might have a solid argument. But so far it seems very weak. Miguel is correct. We must stay honest in our fight. It is the only reason independently-thinking individuals see the truth in many of our arguments.

  3. [Putting this out for everyone, but mostly aimed at Mina. Sorry, Miguel, it’s kinda long-winded.]

    Here’s how I see it:

    First off, start with this basic truth: We will never convert the true zealots. This truth swings both ways – the true “gun control” zealots will never be swayed, and neither will the true “gun rights” zealots. For both sides, their opinions are articles of faith, and will not be abandoned.

    So, if we cannot convince the hard-core believers, we’re left with the middle-ground, some of whom have opinions (that could sway either way) and some are undecided. We might be able to convert some who lean towards “gun control” if we can engage them rationally, and we might strengthen the stances of those who lean towards gun rights. We might also be able to give enough information to the undecideds to (hopefully) sway them towards gun rights and freedom as well.

    However – and this is a kicker, so pay attention – We cannot hope to convert anyone if we stoop to using the underhanded tactics of our opponents. There is one reason – and one reason only – that they lie, and that is simply because the truth is not on their side. They have to lie and rely on emotional arguments, because they have nothing else.

    We, on the other hand, do not have to lie. The truth is on our side. History is on our side. That brings me to my final point: Lying to the people we’re trying to win over will only alienate them. The undecideds who feel they’re being lied to by both sides will choose to remain as they are – unsupportive of either side – except that now it’s not for lack of an opinion, it’s due to distrust of both sides. They become a third type of zealot: one of willful ambivalence, lost to either side.

    That is an unacceptable result, especially if we could possibly win them over by simply telling the truth. We must present the truth to counter the “gun control” lies. As gratifying as using their tactics might be, we must be better than our opponents.

    If you want, look at it this way: if you have a cockroach problem, do you hide their feeding grounds behind furniture (using the cockroaches’ methods “against” them by providing more shade), or do you shine a disinfecting light into the spaces in which they congregate?

  4. If you have to lie to prove your point, your point is invalidated.

    If you DO lie to prove your point, people will THINK your point is invalidated.

    Do NOT lie to prove a point. If you’re trying to win an argument, that’s the WORST way to do it.

  5. Reminds me of the people that swore we were going to have to list our guns on our tax forms and Soros bought up all the gun/ammo companies even after every firearm rights group denounced the rumors.

  6. I suspect that your article is exactly correct, it is a fake and was done to be used against MDA. Now, based on some of the actual ads and postings, including “fake” claims of threats from their members, it is really hard to tell what is real and what is real. Certainly, this fits exactly in line with the CO gun law hearings and the “pee” defense for rape. The recent Jack In The Box and Arlington parking lot meetings between MDA and Open Carry Texas come to mind, where the truth has very little to do with the statements from MDA and Shannon Watts.

  7. Was it fake or not? Who knows. But we can all agree it is stupid. Right?

    There are a lot of trolls and a ton of misleading or plain false information coming from any side of the argument. We can all agree on that. Right?

    Gun issues aside, Shannon Watts was a publicity stunt coordinator for one of the vilest and probably least trusted major corporations in the world. Right?

    Now she works for the “Stop and Frisk Colored People” guy. Right?

    Let’s just stick to the stuff we agree on.

Comments are closed.