Two Observations on the Planned Parenthood Murders [with comment by Paul]

Whenever there is a high-profile shooting incident, liberals scan the news eagerly, hoping that political hay can be made out of it. With the Planned Parenthood murders perpetrated by Robert Dear, they apparently think they have hit the jackpot. Perhaps, in political terms, they are right, but I doubt it.

Unnamed law enforcement sources are being quoted to the effect that after his arrest, Dear said something like “no more baby parts.” QED! say Planned Parenthood spokeswomen. The Center for Medical Progress’s videos are to blame. But do liberals really want to argue that wrongdoing shouldn’t be exposed, for fear that a lunatic may take vigilante action against the wrongdoers? I don’t think so.

To take just one of countless examples, imagine that a nut tries to assassinate one of the Koch brothers–by no means a far-fetched hypothesis, given the insane hatred that has been stirred up against them by the Democratic Party. In that event, would the Democratic Party take responsibility for the acts of the crazed assassin and apologize for its attacks on Charles and David Koch? I doubt it.

As he so often does these days, President mailed it in with a ritual call for more gun control:

“This is not normal. We can’t let it become normal,” a frustrated Obama said.

“If we truly care about this … then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them.

“Enough is enough.”

This is virtually identical to the statements Obama has made following every other high-profile shooting incident. As usual, Obama offers no hint as to what, exactly, he wants to do to prevent “people who have no business wielding them” from obtaining firearms. One look at Robert Dear is enough to suggest that he shouldn’t be armed:


Since we don’t yet know what firearm Dear used or how he obtained it, nothing very meaningful can be said about what his crime might suggest, if anything, about gun laws. But based on what has been reported so far, Dear’s checkered past doesn’t appear to include any felony convictions, and his mental health history, as far as we know, doesn’t include anything that would put him on the NICS list. (Dear may have been subject to a restraining order at one point, but not of the sort that would put him on the federal list.) So, subject to any new information that may come out, it appears that Dear could have purchased firearms legally.

If the Democrats want to change our laws in ways that might be helpful, fine. I for one would be glad to hear whatever proposals they may offer. But so far, they have come up only with irrelevancies, like the already-tried, already-failed ban on “assault weapons,” the firearm least often used to commit homicide. Maybe Obama and the Democrats will come up with something better this time, but I doubt it. Their interest in the subject seems limited to seeking political advantage, and has little or nothing to do with solving problems.

PAUL adds: A few years ago, a gay activist named Floyd Corkins attacked the headquarters of the Family Research Council. Corkins later said he hoped to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces.” Fortunately, Corkins was thrwarted but not before he shot and wounded a guard.

Corkins said he committed this crime after he found out that a left-wing outfit, the Southern Poverty Law Center, identified the Family Research Council as a “hate group.” He told investigators, “Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups. I found them online, did a little research, went to the website, stuff like that.”

Did the Southern Poverty Law Center delist the Family Research Council after Corkins’ attack? Of course not. Did it cease its practice of labeling groups it disagrees with (more than 1,000 of them) as “hate groups” for fear that other fanatics would be inspired to attack them? No.

Nor should Corkins’ attack have prompted it to. A group does not become less objectionable because someone shoots it up. And in a free society, denouncing objectionable groups in strong language is our right and, in some cases, arguably our duty. The line is crossed only if one advocates violence against such groups.