AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts launched a Twitter tirade against President Donald Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Dana Loesch, and others after a man reported to be a Saudi military member opened fire at Naval Air Station Pensacola early Friday morning.

As public officials began reacting to the news of the shooting at the naval air station, Watts was quick to reply with tweets that seemed to blame the attack on a lack of gun control laws.

I’m not sure which of Watts’ proposed gun laws would have prevented a Saudi military pilot from engaging in this murderous attack on a military base, and frankly, I doubt she ever tells us.

Again, what law would have prevented this attack? Watts doesn’t say. She’s content with trolling political figures who support the Second Amendment express their sorrow at the news of the murders at NAS Pensacola.

Rep. Gaetz represents the district where NAS Pensacola is located. As for Gaetz “getting into an argument” with a Parkland father, that isn’t exactly the story. From NPR:

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., sparked commotion in the hearing when he listed circumstances in which violence was committed by undocumented immigrants, and said the solution would be to build the Trump-backed wall along the Southwest border.

“I hope we do not forget the pain, and anguish, and sense of loss felt by those all over the country who have been the victims of violence at the hands of illegal aliens,” Gaetz said. “[Firearms background check legislation] would not have stopped many of the circumstances I raised, but a wall, a barrier on the Southern border may have, and that’s what we’re fighting for.”

This led to protests in the hearing room by the fathers of two Parkland shooting victims, Manuel Oliver and Fred Guttenberg. Gaetz responded by asking for their removal. The public is not allowed to comment during congressional hearings, and the two were given a warning.

Pointing at Oliver and Guttenberg, the Florida Republican continued to press for them to be removed from the room. “I’d observe three interruptions of my time by the same individual, and the chair is not exercising his discretion to remove that individual,” Gaetz said.

So Oliver and Guttenberg were disrupting the hearing, but there was no way that the Democrat in charge of the committee hearing was going to remove them, no matter how disruptive they might have been while the Republican representative was speaking.

Watts then moved on to Donald Trump, though once again she didn’t note what exactly the President could have done that would have prevented today’s attack on a military base.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis also drew Watts’ ire when he tweeted that he had just spoken to the president about the attack at NAS Pensacola.

Watts ended her Twitter tantrum with a response to Marco Rubio’s tweet in support of those effected in Pensacola.

There are obviously still a lot of questions surrounding the attack at NAS Pensacola, including how the killer acquired the weapon or weapons used in the attack. We know that in the attack in Pearl Harbor earlier this week, the murderer used his service rifle to kill two civilian employees at the naval base, but authorities in Pensacola haven’t said anything about the gun used in Friday’s assault.

None of that matters to gun control activists like Watts, however. When a “high profile gun violence incident” takes place, it’s her job to start tweeting right away, before the facts are even known. It’s a strategy straight from the anti-gun messaging handbook “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging”. Page 40 to be precise.

There can be a tendency to adopt a quiet “wait and see” attitude when a high-profile gun violence incident happens. The truth is, the most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak. While we always want to be respectful of the situation, a self-imposed period of silence is never necessary.

The messaging guidebook also tells anti-gun activists to “don’t assume the facts – and don’t wait for them.”

Experience tells us that the specific facts of a high-profile gun incident are revealed over time. If we jump to conclusions about those details, we could find ourselves at odds with reality as events unfold. So, the smartest thing to do is avoid linking our message and arguments to any one set of partially-revealed facts. We shouldn’t assume the facts. But, we also shouldn’t argue ourselves into inaction while we await clarity about details. The clearest course is to advance our core message about preventing gun violence independent of facts that may shift on us over time. (“While we don’t know the specifics of this tragedy, we know far too many people are killed by weak gun laws in this country.”) Of course, once a fact is clearly established, it makes sense to rely on it to advance your case.

Watts literally played it by the book did with her tweetstorm Friday morning blaming the attack at NAS Pensacola on a lack of some unspecified gun control law that she infers would have prevented the murders had politicians only acted to put it in place. You and I and many others may find that strategy repugnant, but the gun control movement apparently believe it’s effective.