The Left’s current focus on “stand your ground” laws is intended to obscure the fact that what liberals really want to do is abolish the concept of self-defense; or, at any rate, self-defense with a firearm. That objective was made crystal clear in this exchange between Chris Matthews and Mark Glaze, the executive director of Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun organization, the deceptively-named Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Matthews asked Glaze whether a man wielding an ax handle should be considered to be “armed” for purposes of self-defense with a firearm:

Matthews: Would you consider the guy with the ax handle armed or not? Glaze: Well, not with a gun. Matthews: No, would you call him — well, I call him armed. Glaze: Well, I have a word for him, I have a word for him. I grew up in Colorado where my dad was a gun dealer, and a guy who shoots somebody who has anything other than a gun when they could have done something else like talk or fight with their fists — Matthews: Well, how do you talk to a guy with an ax handle? How do you talk to a guy with an ax handle? Glaze: Well, you fight him. You run away. You deescalate the situation. I mean, that`s the way it was.

The NRA comments:

Glaze’s response betrays Michael Bloomberg and MAIG’s radical vision of a society devoid of nearly all lawful self-defense. The right to use a gun in self-defense in circumstances like the one Matthews and Glaze discuss is not at all controversial, as it would likely be legal in all 50 states (dependent on the exact individual circumstances), and is an extension of one of our most long-respected natural rights. … Glaze’s feigned tough-guy attitude neglects the part of population that isn’t capable of fist-fighting or running from an ax-wielding attacker. The elderly, disabled, women facing larger male attackers, and others less capable of physically defending themselves might not be able to afford to test their physical prowess against a violent, armed criminal.

Women are the fastest-growing gun-owning demographic, precisely because, for most women, a firearm may be necessary for effective self-defense. Why does the Democratic Party want to enable rapists and murderers who prey on women who, if the Democrats have their way, will have no better option than to hope they can run faster than a would-be rapist or murderer?

Gun rights advocates have a better idea. See, for example, the NRA’s ongoing NRA Women video series, co-sponsored by Smith & Wesson. This video by Natalie Foster comes from the NRA News series:

The Democrats’ effort to disarm law-abiding females is, in my view, an important aspect of their war on women.