“WHILE BLOOMBERG’S BEEN FOCUSING ON GUNS AND BIG GULPS“, Glenn Reynolds quips today on Instapundit, “New York City seeing spike in anti-gay crime, officials say.”

And Mr. Bloomberg has grandstanded repeatedly on limiting the ability of all citizens, including gay men and lesbians, to defend themselves against attack.

Perhaps if New York made it easier for law-abiding citizens to get concealed carry permits, bashers would be warier of confronting gay people knowing they could be armed.

NICK ADDS: As I’ve often said, the best way to fight “hate crimes” is for people to arm themselves. And as my buddies over at Reason.com have noted, for some in Seattle, “[i]t’s clearly inconceivable that anybody could actually hold in his or her mind, simultaneously, a regard for the right of people to love who they want and respect for the right of self-defense”

Jeff adds: Nick, good one! Following your link, I surfed on through Oleg Volk’s website to www.a-human-right.com, which has some of the best pro-gun posters I’ve seen, starting here.

Here’s a sample of their wares, with more below the fold:

(more…)

Remember talking about this guy? A few months ago he managed to typify much that ails America. An elite left-wing TV personality, in December 2012, Gregory violated the silly D.C. Code 7-2506.01(b), by obtaining and displaying (on air) a large-capacity gun magazine. Gregory did so after D.C. police had specifically told him not to… but they never prosecuted him for it. Since D.C. does prosecute the minor infractions of ordinary citizens (unconnected with any other crime, and regardless of the citizen’s lack of criminal intent or record), Gregory clearly got some kind of preferential treatment. Why (or on what rationale), we still don’t know.

William A. Jacobsen has been trying to find out why, and Judicial Watch announced last Monday “that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and Office of the Attorney General (OAG).” The lawsuit follows D.C. having stonewalled on Jacobsen’s earlier FOIA request for documents. Godspeed!

What if instead of going around the country giving speeches on gun control, President Obama met privately with Senators and Members of Congress to solicit their views on reasonable firearms regulations — and to lobby them personally on expanding federal background checks.

Or would that strategy have defeated his real purpose in pushing the issue?

Your thoughts?

Remember when President Obama told Jay Leno that one thing he wanted to do as the nation’s chief executive was “to break is a pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame.”

Doesn’t seem the Democrat has put his money where his mouth was.  According to Mark Felsenthal and Steve Holland of Reuters, Obama blames “shameful” politics for defeat of gun measure:

President Barack Obama, his gun control legislation falling to defeat, lashed out at the U.S. Congress in unusually tough terms on Wednesday as he came to grips with the loss of a key priority after spending months fighting for it.

“There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this. It came down to politics,” Obama said after the Senate failed to muster enough votes to expand background checks for firearms purchases.

Obama accused those opposed to the legislation he supports of being liars, saying, “The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill“.

Do wonder how many Senators Mr. Obama called or otherwise buttonholed to ask for their support on this issue he made a “key priority” only after willing reelection last fall.

—-

*Or did he just give speeches?

Nothing can be sustained at peak intensity. As the anti-gun hysteria whipped up by the Obama administration recedes a bit, so does the public’s support for gun restrictions. From CBS (via HotAir):

Currently, support for stricter gun control laws stands at 47 percent today, down from a high of 57 percent just after the [Sandy Hook] shootings. Thirty-nine percent want those laws kept as they are, and another 11 percent want them made less strict.

Of course, Joe Biden still doesn’t get it. From one of his appearances last week:

Tell me what the burden is that you have to buy three clips with 10 rounds versus one clip with 30. The cost is the same. What is the burden?

The burden, Mr. Vice President, is that you might die, if you have to stop and reload while defending yourself – or your daughter, let’s say – from multiple assailants. Think of a gang assault in an inner city, or for that matter, government agents storming your home illegally. Both are extreme situations, but that’s WHY people have guns: for the emergencies.

It’s clear that Biden understands neither self-defense nor freedom. Self-defense is a natural right, and government is (supposed to be) our employee, not our master. The People should not have to justify, to the likes of Slow Joe Biden demanding “Tell me…”, their choices about arming themselves.

Rather, Biden (or government in general) should have to strictly justify all burdens and restrictions that it wants to put on ordinary citizens’ arming themselves. I’m not saying that government can’t justify at least some of them; but it’s the People who should be demanding “Tell me…”, and Biden who should be scrambling to answer.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many liberals fail to grasp the reality of the law of unintended consequences with respect to any piece of supposedly well-intentioned legislation.  I use the word “liberals” here rather than “leftists” because I mean to refer not to the hard-core, doctrinaire leftists, but to the garden variety liberals who continually get fooled by the left into supporting their ill-intentioned schemes.

The difference between a basic liberal and a hard-core leftist is nicely illustrated by the anecdote that opens this article about the left’s scheme to undermine American power in the world and the American way of life.  Daren Jonescu describes an acquaintance of his, a teacher, and a liberal, who was surprised to learn that the Communist Party of the U.S.A. had endorsed Obama:

When I explained that the Party’s official endorsement cited Obama’s signature policy initiatives as the surest means to achieving socialism in America, and that CPUSA leaders were actively campaigning for Obama in swing states, my colleague fell silent for a moment, and then said, matter-of-factly, “It doesn’t really bother me; I guess it might bother me if Obama were endorsing the Communist Party, but if they’re endorsing him, it doesn’t matter.”

In typical fashion, the liberal here manages to convince himself that what should be obvious is really inconsequential.

But I digress.  While it seems clear to me that the left’s aim in pursuing gun-control is to disarm the populace, liberals always buy into it because they believe the lie that gun-control will somehow reduce “gun-violence,” even though lawbreakers will always find ways to acquire guns.

In the current environment, for example, all the gun-control talk has created a run on guns, ammunition, and the magazines that the politicians are talking about outlawing.  And the liberals are flummoxed and upset about all of the guns being sold these days.  It’s a classic case of failing to understand the law of unintended consequences whenever gun-control becomes a fixation of the politicians and their agents in the media.

Of course, that is only just the beginning.  Opponents of more gun-control are always quick to point out that as the measures fail to achieve their aims, the calls for more restrictions and more confiscatory legislation will only escalate.  Conservatives recognize this, and leftists know that is their ultimate aim.  But liberals always delude themselves into perpetuating the lies of the left.

Every so often, though, they get a clue that the problem might not be as easily fixed as proponents of immediate legislative fixes would have them believe.  Consider, for instance, the title of this recent Washington Post article: “Weapons made with 3-D printers could test gun-control efforts.”

To follow the implications of that story to its logical conclusions is to recognize that one unsuccessful gun-control bill is but the first step down a slippery slope that can lead to more and more government intervention into every aspect of our lives, yet “liberals” still manage to remain in denial about that reality.

Via Andy at Ace and Wired, comes this report from DHS (New Jersey branch) on the commonalities of mass shooters. A few key ones:

• Male between the ages of 17 and 48. (Fits with Dan’s earlier post.)
• Usually no prior military service. (Goes against a stereotype favored by some on the Left, of the rampaging psycho ex-soldier.)
• Usually acts alone. (Columbine was an exception.)
• Usually uses a semi-automatic handgun. (So, the banning of so-called “assault rifles” would accomplish… ?)
• Usually “no pattern or method to the selection of victims.”
• But, nearly half of the shootings (13 of 29) were at a workplace and done by an employee or ex-employee. Warning signs would be a sudden increase in the employee’s: absenteeism, drug/alcohol use, poor hygiene, depression, withdrawal, resistance to change, mood swings, angry outbursts, suicidal comments, comments about “putting things in order”, comments about problems at home, comments empathizing with previous mass shooters and other criminals.

The shooters include whites and non-whites (I did not see any obvious racial pattern).

The report states that “Most of the active shooters took their own lives or were shot by responding police officers.” But it also indicates that it takes 10-15 minutes, typically, for police to get there; during which time people are sitting ducks.

The report is not useful for drawing conclusions about the role of armed civilians. First, it looks at only “the 29 deadliest” of mass shootings in recent years. Almost by definition, those would be the ones where an armed civilian did not quickly stop the shooter. (The ones where an armed civilian did, would tend to have lower casualty counts.) Second, the report simply does not discuss the role of armed civilians, one way or the other. Whereas we know that, in at least a few shootings, armed civilians slowed the shooter, or occasioned his thinking “game over” and taking his own life.

HotAir kindly posts this picture of the good Senator:

As Ed Morrissey puts it:

…did no one ever tell Feinstein to keep her finger off the trigger of a firearm unless ready to shoot? Shouldn’t a politician attempting to lecture us on gun safety know something about it herself?

For the record, here are FrontSight’s Four Universal Firearms Safety Rules:

1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle (the front of the weapon) cover (point at) anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger OFF the trigger and, in fact, outside the trigger guard.
4. Be sure of your target and what’s in line with your target.

Feinstein appears to be violating (possibly) all four rules. She appears to be in a crowded room, on an elevated platform, with people spread out before her (such as the photographer who took the picture from one side), and small awareness of her gun possibly pointing down into some of the people (on the other side). And, her finger on the trigger. None of which is careful handling of the weapon, like it could always be loaded.

Liberals feel free to psychoanalyze conservatives. Turnabout is fair play. Especially when liberals advocate something which is plainly irrational, like disarming law-abiding citizens because of the crimes of criminals.

Thanks to HotAir’s Green Room, I just came across this clip from psychiatrist Keith Ablow. Regarding Obama’s irrational push to take certain arms from the law-abiding, Ablow’s theory is:

…that “the autonomy of others did [Obama] no favors as a kid, when he was abandoned again and again by people who were — quote, unquote — ‘responsible’ and supposed to do the right thing like parents. So his belief is: ‘You know what? What good is individual autonomy in decision making? What good did it do me? The collective is what needs to be empowered, and all the better if I am the center of that collective and the most powerful person in it.’”

“His solution runs psychologically in the direction of disempowering the individual every single time,” Ablow said…

Do you find Ablow’s theory plausible, or an overreach? (Or perhaps incomplete?)

UPDATE: Piers Morgan is apparently insecure enough that he can’t let two pro-gun ladies complete their sentences after he has invited them on his show.

I’ve never gotten into the man’s music, but he is a staunch constitutional conservative and has some good points in this rant-y, red-meat interview by Peter Schiff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK-ytv3Jq_o

Here’s a thought: Maybe we should rename our “gun-free” zones as “defense-free” zones. Catchy name? The point being, they’re not gun-free and never will be; the criminals will still have guns.

UPDATE: NRA membership is up by 250,000 since the Left started its new gun-control push.

Before even pausing to mourn the children, teachers and school administrators murdered in Connecticut, our friends in the legacy media sought to pin the blame on someone other than the deranged shooter. The NRA is to blame. Or so, some claimed. (Just check the Facebook feed from some of your liberal friends.)

Look up at CNN next time you’re at the gym — or in an airport — and you’ll see another piece on guns. It’s not that most Americans are clamoring for gun control,* it’s that folks in their circles are doing that.

CNN — and other voices in the legacy media — attempt to craft a national narrative from the opinions of certain segments of the population.

How much different our news would be if our journalists associated more often with small businessmen and women or churchgoing Christians.

* (more…)

Just caught this on ad on the sidebar of a Weekly Standard article:

And it called to mind something Glenn Reynolds had posted yesterday, a reader e-mail reporting increased business at gun stores in Alabama. “There’s no question“, said correspondent observed

that America is better armed than it was two months ago, all thanks to President Obama! Assuming the Republicans in the House don’t prove spineless (a major assumption), the net effect of the Obama gun control initiatives will be to a massive increase in guns owned by private citizens, record profits for gun stores and manufacturers, and a very alert citizenry. This second term may yet work out better than expected!

Instead of decreasing the number of firearms, including “assault” rifles owned by citizens, Democratic rhetoric has served to increase that number.  Seems that politicians’ rhetoric is like government action:  the results are quite from those intended.

RELATED: NRA adds 100,000 paid memberships in 18 days

ALSO RELATED: Dianne Feinstein’s Legacy Might Surprise You

If they play CNN at your gym and you do cardio for more than 5 minutes, you will be subject to various stories and diatribes on the problem of gun violence and the imperative for increased firearms egulation.  And then, take a gander at the image AOL/Huffington Post used to illustrate and article on the NRA:

Seems the editors agree with the protestors who hoisted this banner.

From GOProud today:

(Washington, D.C.) – “Words fail to describe the horror of the massacre at Sandy Hook. Our hearts and prayers go out to the family and friends of the victims of this incomprehensible attack.

“As policy makers begin to look at how we can prevent further tragedies like this, we felt that it was important for us to weigh in as an organization. GOProud is an organization of constitutional conservatives – gay and straight alike. We believe that our Constitution is a sacred document and that the rights it grants should be protected and defended.

“In the weeks and months ahead, policy makers in Washington and in state capitols around the country will look to find ways to prevent another Sandy Hook from happening – these will be important and necessary debates. We hope that as they debate issues like preventing gun deaths, the impact of violent video games, and the role of our mental health system in this country that they will also remember our 1st Amendment right to free speech, our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, and our 5th Amendment right to due process.

“We urge lawmakers to heed the words of Benjamin Franklin, who cautioned: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Is there anything he doesn’t politicize?

RELATED: Obama campaign raises money from video of president’s Newtown speech

UPDATE:   Disgraceful: Obama Invokes Newtown Massacre to Pressure Republicans to Go Along with His Tax Hikes (Via Instapundit).

Last night before bed, caught these as the leading headlines on Yahoo!

Of the top headlines, five are related to the Connecticut shooting, only one could be considered news about the horror. The rest related to political jockeying over guns.

Instead of focusing on what happened, our friends in the legacy media have become obsessed over guns.

Yesterday, Glenn Reynolds shared an exchange he caught on Facebook:

“What is the gun community going to do about this tragedy?”

“I dunno. What is the gay community going to do about Penn State?”

“Ouch”, added the blogmeiser, “But a fair response to unfair stigmatization. With the gay community, everyone would complain about smearing millions for the deviant and predatory behavior of a few.”

And such a response would be correct.  The pederast at Penn State was as representative of gay people as the shooter in Connecticut was of gun owners.

Earlier today, Glenn Reynolds linked an Andrew Breitbart video that, well, I just can’t get out of my mind.  I’m not sure I share the new media pioneer’s hypothesis, but others have offered opinions similar to his, namely that the administration crafted the Fast and Furious program in order to create “a narrative that they could use in America to try and thwart our Second Amendment constitutional rights.”

Until Attorney General Eric Holder releases the documents requested by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we won’t know why the Justice Department went forward with this plan.  We still don’t know why the project’s planners failed to include two components of a similar program, Operation Wide Receiver, namely that that Bush era program (1) “did involve an attempt to track the firearms, while Fast and Furious did not” and (2) that  “Operation Wide Receiver was run in conjunction with the Mexican government, while Fast and Furious was kept secret from not only Mexico, but [also] from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) attaché to Mexico, Darren Gil.” (more…)

On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee approved a measure which would give gay Americans a tool to help us defend ourselves against gay bashers:

The legislation, which would allow for conceal-and-carry weapon reciprocity across states lines, cleared the panel on a 19-11 vote.

All but one committee Republican, Rep. Dan Lungren (Calif.), supported the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which is sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.); Democrats united in opposition to the bill. Lungren and other Republicans have raised concerns about the legislation’s effect on the rights of states.

It’s unfortunate that Democrats, to paraphrase Joe Biden, have no notion what it’s like for a gay man or lesbian to be on the other side of a thug intent on beating him up — with no means to defend himself.  Let’s hope that organizations concerned with the welfare of gay Americans, like the Human Rights Campaign, will denounce House Democrats for their insensitivity to gay bashing.

To be sure, this measure would allow all Americans to better defend themselves.

(Via David Hardy via Glenn Reynolds.)

Back in 2006, a teenager thug “armed with a hatchet and handgun opened fire inside a New Bedford, Mass., gay bar“. Perhaps, the carnage would have been less had patrons been able to arm themselves.

Now, patrons at gay bars in another commonwealth, that of Virginia, can have greater peace of mind when they wind down.  Gun crimes have dropped at Virginia bars and restaurants after the enactment of a “new state law that allows patrons with permits to carry concealed guns into alcohol-serving businesses”:

The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper’s request.

And overall, the crimes that occurred during the law’s first year were relatively minor, and few of the incidents appeared to involve gun owners with concealed-carry permits, the analysis found.

Via Instapundit.  Laws which improve the lot of all citizens also help gay citizens.  If all citizens have another tool at their disposal to protect themselves from crime, so too do gay citizens.

Here’s hoping more gay bloggers and gay organizations will take note of the success of Virginia’s law.

in a piece comparing responses to the riots in London and Los Angeles, Joy McCain gets at the essence of liberal support of gun control:

The left is right to fear firearms, since exercise of that particular freedom and experience of that self-sufficiency (however limited it is in scope) can be a “gateway drug” to other forms of independent thought and action.

It’s all about wresting control from individuals and delivering power to the state, an entity which, they believe, will run by those better and brighter than the common man (or woman) and so better able to tell such commonfolk how to run their lives.

Perhaps that is also why gay leaders refuse to embrace policies (e.g., concealed carry) which would give gay individuals another tool to protect ourselves.

Guess it’s part of that equality notion for the gay community rather than that freedom ideal for gay individuals.  To have equality, they contend, you must needs have a stronger state.