Bloodthirsty: 'Gun control' lobby requires victims; the more the merrier

Kurt Hofmann

St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner

“It’s an ill wind that blows nobody good” is a proverb with particular applicability to the gun rights/”gun control” debate. A mass shooting–an event that any decent person would certainly classify as “ill”–is, to the forcible citizen disarmament lobby, an opportunity to exploit. Long before Rahm Emanuel famously said, “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things . . . ” the gun prohibitionists had taken this concept to heart. The example that perhaps most glaringly illustrates this contemptible, exploitive opportunism is Carolyn “What’s a Barrel Shroud?” McCarthy’s introduction of H.R. 1859 (a magazine capacity limit bill–somewhat similar to, but not quite as restrictive as, her new magazine ban bill, H.R. 308) within hours of the Virginia Tech massacre.

H.R. 308 came, of course, right on the heels of another atrocity, and the gun ban lobby moved with characteristic haste. From MSNBC Open Channel:

“In the wake of these kind of incidents, the trick is to move quickly,” said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, one of the gun control groups working with McCarthy’s office.

No one can accuse the VPC and McCarthy of being unaware of “the trick.”

Now, in the wake of a new tragedy, the Christian Science Monitor asks, “Can mayors make Jared Loughner the poster boy for gun control?” The “mayors” referred to are Mike Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and CSM says that they have ambitions of starting a grassroots movement:

Bloomberg and the mayors’ group are aware of the political obstacles in Congress. But they are trying to mount a grass-roots effort to sway Congress. On Monday, part of the effort involved bringing in 34 Americans who had been shot or had members of their families killed.

The thing is, there isn’t, never has been, and almost certainly never will be a genuine grassroots movement for “gun control.” Jim Kessler, who as a former official with the rabidly anti-gun Americans for Gun Safety group, seems to have noticed that, as he told Salon.com:

The two opposing lobbies are very different. The gun rights lobby consists of a grass-roots membership who are gun enthusiasts. The gun control lobby consists mainly of the family members of crime victims. And the number of gun enthusiasts dwarf the number of victims,” he says.

And “unfortunately” for them, violent crime is going down, making for a dwindling supply of grieving family members. Kessler holds out hope, though:

Maybe if a terrorist starts using large magazines there will be changes in the law. But I don’t think [the Giffords shooting] will do it.

C’mon, you lazy terrorists, start mowing ’em down–and be sure to use the magazines we’re trying to ban.

Kessler, by the way, is now calling for what he apparently thinks is a new approach, in a New York Times op-ed piece he recently co-wrote with Third Way president Jon Cowan, called “Gun Control Without a Ban“:

The president should therefore call for several additions to the database: names on the terrorist watch list, military recruits who fail drug tests and patients ordered to undergo mental-health treatment, if their doctor or family requests they be added. He should also demand that reluctant states supply court records on mentally incapacitated residents.

Left unexplained is how it’s not a ban to vastly expand the list of people for whom gun ownership is, well . . . banned (and don’t get me started on “prohibited persons” lists). And certainly left unexplained is how a society that prides itself on its adherence to due process can deny Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights, for being on a “watch list,” or because the person who prescribes antibiotics when you get sick doesn’t like guns.

Apparently, Kessler and pals are hoping enough people will be killed that they don’t have to explain those things.