The anti-gun left has apparently fully embraced that old saying from the late sixties and early seventies: the personal is political. It’s not enough to protest the NRA’s headquarters, call its leaders Nazis and ask how many kids have they killed today in tediously un-original chants. Now they’re attacking their homes and families.
National Rifle Association lobbyist Chris Cox says his house was splashed with fake blood — twice.
Then, someone made a fake website for his wife’s interior design business, altering images of artwork to show photos of child gun violence victims.
Last week, two gun control activists protested outside Cox’s Alexandria, Va., home and handed out fliers outside his wife’s nearby business.
The “blood” splasher was caught.
An attorney for Patricia Hill, the alleged vandal, did not immediately provide a comment regarding the fake blood incidents. The other protesters say they have been careful not to cross legal lines and knew nothing of the vandalism. They are all part of a growing movement that thinks gun control advocacy should be more aggressive — and more personal. …
Hill, who is also a professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, was arrested after the January incident and faces a misdemeanor charge of property destruction. She declined to comment because of the pending case and referred calls to her attorney.
And they wonder how a candidate like Donald Trump not only eliminated more than a dozen conventional GOP rivals, but then beat Hillary Clinton.
Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who has studied the fight over gun rights, said such confrontational protests are familiar in abortion and animal rights activism but rare in this realm.
“It is a sign of how gun control activists are looking for any new avenues, with Congress deadlocked,” he said. “Gun control activists are really pushing the envelope, trying any way they can.”
They want to de-humanize and “de-platform” anyone who dares to disagree with them.
“I don’t think the Cox family is getting enough social pressure,” said (Amanda) Gailey (above left), a professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln who said. “People need to stop treating these predatory, sick people like they’re just a neighbor.”
Anything in service to the cause.
(Catherine) Koebel (above right) added an armed gun rights’ advocate once came to her door and demanded to come inside. She filed for a restraining order.
Her protests are by definition less threatening, she argues, because she opposes guns.
“If I made him uncomfortable at his house, too bad, he deserves it,” Koebel said in an interview. “I felt unsafe in my home because of his product.”
These new, more aggressive anti-gun activists may not like the result of their tactics. Gun rights supporters have begun to adopt many of the same methods that the fringe left has been using for decades. How would Gailey, Koebel and Hill react if they woke up one morning to a half dozen or more pro-gun demonstrators marching peacefully in front of their homes while openly carrying firearms?
Or how about other leaders of the civilian disarmament movement? Would David Hogg be happy if his parents’ places of business were the sites of demonstrations against further gun control laws? Does Shannon Watts want to wade through a group of Second Amendment supporters at the foot of her driveway every morning?
Gun rights supporters are, by definition, law-abiding, peaceful people. But continued targeting of the homes, families and businesses of people with whom the anti-gun left disagrees could have results they don’t expect or want. Gailey, Koebel and Hill should be careful what they wish for in trying to establish this new standard.