Month: August 2009

That’s the message that Josh Horowitz is spinning:

The nation is transfixed this month on a series of tense, contentious town halls that are taking place in states across the country. Determined to derail President Obama’s health care reform plans, right wing activists have stormed these meetings en masse to shout down speakers (including Democratic members of Congress) and derail all attempts at meaningful dialogue. Reports indicate that “Tea Partiers” are also carrying concealed handguns into these events — yet few in the media have commented on the distorted view of the Second Amendment that is driving this call to arms.

What follows is absolute pant shitting hysterics over the fact that protesters are choosing to carry firearms for personal protection from union thugs who beat people.  Josh doesn’t seem to understand the difference between a person committing an act of political violence, and an American exercising the right to defend themselves from being beaten by a gang of union thugs.

Exhortations to the right wing base to take armed political action against the Obama administration are far from idle talk–but instead reflect a deeply developed ideology that has been actively promoted by the National Rifle Association and other gun lobby groups for the past 30 years.

This is just a lie.  No other way to spin it.  There’s no gun rights out there who promotes political violence.

It’s been ten years, according to this Brady press release, since the Million Mom March popped onto the scene, spured by a mass shooting at a Jewish community center in 1999.  That got me to thinking what some of the missteps the Brady organization had made, mostly under the leadership of former Maryland congressman Michael Barnes.

The first was the name change from Handgun Control Inc to the Brady Campaign. Changing the name from Handgun Control Inc was probably a necessary move for them, given the changing scope of their mission.  But I think it made about as much sense to change the name to the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” as it would for NRA to change their name to the “Charlton Heston Campaign for the Second Amendment.”  Sure, we like Heston, and they like Jim and Sarah.  But no one under 30 remembers the Reagan assassination, and at 35 I barely remember it.  That’s not to say that Jim and Sarah Brady didn’t make major contributions to the gun control movement, they certainly did, considering that the Act of Congress that bears their name enacted a third generation of federal gun controls.  But if you name your organization after a person, your brand really only lasts as long as their celebrity.

That brings up the second mistake I think Barnes made, which was absorbing the failing Million Mom March, which I think succesfully feminized their movement, and lead to awkward emasculating moments like Ladd Everitt wearing a Million Mom’s t-shirt at a rally.  I’m sure Mr. Everitt would argue it was not an emasculating moment, but think about it: what about dads for gun control?  Regardless of how secure someone might be in their sexuality, the implication is that gun control is a woman’s issue.  Some of the great advances we’ve made in the past decade has been breaking out of the good old boy stereotype and getting women involved in the shooting sports.  It puzzles me why Barnes thought it was a good idea to take his movement and run in the opposite direction with it.

I’m always reluctant to publicly discuss the failures and missteps of our opponents, but I’m sure it’s something they’ve likely thought about, and even if they haven’t, there’s not a whole lot they can do to shed that baggage now anyway.  The more I think about it, the more I think Bloomberg is shaping up to be our cheif opponent in the coming decade.  He has an enormous amount of money, the New York City elite and political establishment behind him, and he’s managed to assemble an impressive array of allies, good enough to twist the arm of someone like Arlen Specter.  But I also think Bloomberg’s organization has some fundamental weaknesses too, which I will outline in a later post.

It’s the second time I’ve heard this meme that NRA member are singularly focused on gun rights.  When you can’t beat them, insult them.  I guess it feels just as good.