The liberal freak out over the Supreme Court gun carry ruling has begun
Trump appointed justices will make states abide by the Second Amendment
The Supreme Court is about to give a big win to gun owners in blue states. And liberals are already distraught over more Americans exercising their right to carry a gun outside the home.
Liberals — wrongly — feel like it will lead to more violence. So when the ruling comes down in the coming days, they are really going to freak out about it.
I told you over a year ago that the Court's decision to take up a gun rights case meant good news for Second Amendment supporters. But many of you were skeptical.
As we got to the fall, I double-downed and wrote that if you live in one of the eight “may issue” states (California, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, et al) where it is almost impossible to carry a gun for self-defense outside your home, you’re about to get your right to bear arms restored.
After listening to oral arguments in November, I was a little less sure of how broad the ruling about the New York case would be. But I stuck to my guns in this analysis: Trump’s Justices Tip Supreme Court to Strike Down NY Gun Control Carry Permit Law
Hizzoner is afraid
The epicenter of the liberal freakout is, of course, New York City because that’s the specific gun law that is about to get shot down.
The panicked Mayor of New York, Eric Adams, said last week:
“We better be very afraid if that Supreme Court ruling is passed down.”
The plaintiffs along with the York State Rifle & Pistol Association are challenging the state’s law that requires concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate “proper cause.”
Mayor Adams also said:
This is not Jesse James and The Sundance Kids, who can draw the fastest.
For those who are stating that if all the bad guys have guns, let's equal it out by having all the good guys have guns. That is just so dumb.”
Hizzoner believes that New Yorkers with licenses to conceal carry guns will turn into murderers. He declared this:
If you are allowing people to carry guns, the good guys are no longer able to be distinguished from the bad guys because if you have a bad day, and you have a gun, that bad day can elevate to an argument.
There's a tendency that people believe if they got a gun, ‘Why have it, if I'm not using it?’ That's just the mindset of carrying a gun.
Reality check: I was the first woman to get a concealed carry permit in Washington, D.C. And I promise you that my ”mindset” has never been that I have a gun, so I might as well shoot someone.
MSNBC is scared at Starbucks
There was a segment on MSNBC that was unintentionally hilarious on this issue. You can watch it below.
The only guest for the infomercial was Shannon Watts, the Founder of Moms Demand Action, who is a rabid gun-control activist.
The show’s host, Zerlina Maxwell, thinks the issue before the Supreme Court is open carry, which is wrong. Maxwell repeatedly talks about how she moved from New York to Virginia, and she’s shocked to see people with guns at Starbucks. Her premise is a law-abiding person with a gun at Starbucks is scary, not comforting.
Watts kept ignoring the host’s nonsense about open carry and instead tried to scare the audience by saying the Supreme Court will “force more guns in public places” that would “threaten … one in four people.”
The women then make a link between the Supreme Court’s leaked opinion on Roe v. Wade to gun violence because the Left is really going bananas now that conservatives have taken control of the judicial branch.
The New Yorker is horrified
The “New Yorker”, which is the snootiest of left-wing magazines wrote that the Supreme Court ruling is actually linked to the horrific mass shooting at a Buffalo grocery store by a racist, lunatic 18-year-old.
The reporter’s connection between the two events was simply that both are in New York and both are related to, well, guns.
The subtitle of the story is “The racist killings showed the horror of firearms; the Supreme Court may be about to make the problem worse.”
How would the court make the problem worse? It’s not clear.
The writer either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care to explain to readers that carrying a concealed weapon is for a handgun — not the rifles used by the alleged Buffalo killer Peyton Gendron. She also doesn’t inform readers that buying a gun is generally easier than getting a license to carry.
Of course, the liberal media never writes that no gun control law has ever been proven to reduce gun crime (much less stop a mass shooter.)
SIDE BET: Remember this amateur meme I made last fall predicting the votes? Does anyone want to bet against me?
The New York Daily News is outraged
“The Supreme Court’s fingerprints are at the Buffalo crime scene” is the headline of an op-ed run by the liberal New York Daily News.
You can read it here, but the headline never gets backed up by the facts. The author, Dennis Aftergut, writes:
Peyton Gendron did not use a concealed weapon. But a court ruling that permits such guns would send another signal of approval for a society where guns are king, and more shootings like in Buffalo are inevitable.
The op-ed is all over the place — arguing that the Heller decision was wrong and that Supreme Court has ruled on “assault weapons” — but never proves the headline.
The reason he can’t back up his headline is that a ruling to allow law-abiding people to carry guns outside the home without proving a specific need to defend themselves does not lead to mass shootings.
It’s actually an offensive thing to say that the tens of millions of Americans who conceal carry are related to mass murderers. But we are not the target audience...