Backed by Bloomberg


The New York Times reports:

The commercial is an unambiguous appeal to gun owners: a middle-aged hunter, rifle in hand, vows that he will fight to protect the Second Amendment. But in a sensible, father-of-the-house tone, he also urges voters to support comprehensive background checks, “so criminals and the dangerously mentally ill can’t.

The man behind the advertisement is not known for his kinship with the gun crowd: Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, the nation’s fiercest advocate of restrictions on firearms since the December rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Determined to persuade Congress to act in response to that shooting, Mr. Bloomberg on Monday will begin bankrolling a $12 million national advertising campaign that focuses on senators who he believes might be persuaded to support a pending package of federal regulations to curb gun violence. buy guns.”

Can we agree on one thing? Yes, New York’s mayor has got the cash to pay for ads like this, but the grotesquely authoritarian Bloomberg, the Mussolini of the Big Gulp, is one of the least credible possible sponsors that there could be for “sensible” gun control.

If those defending gun rights are smart, they should make an issue of Bloomberg’s support of a campaign like this: his participation is the absolute guarantee that the current assault on gun rights will not stop with a few “modest” changes.

There are 9 comments.

  1. Member

    Need some Assault cups.

    • #1
    • March 24, 2013 at 8:36 am
    • Like
  2. Member

    And so Godwin’s Third Cousin’s Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Mussolini or Italian Fascists approaches 1.

    But I can’t imagine any conversation of the recent era Bloomberg without some reference to the 20th Century totalitarians. I think the NRA should make Bloomie the poster child of gun and Big Gulp grabbing fascist trash. And can I have a half smoke with that?

    • #2
    • March 24, 2013 at 9:05 am
    • Like
  3. Member

    Would that I, or anyone really, could bankroll an ad campaign about the sociopathic nature of the Bloomberg impulse. Sisyphus’ idea of using Bloomberg of the star of an anti-Bloomberg campaign is a good one though.

    • #3
    • March 24, 2013 at 9:13 am
    • Like
  4. Inactive

    Does anybody else besides me wonder why Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t seem to spend any time on the job he was actually elected to do? Apparently New York City is problem-free and perfectly capable of running itself without any chief executive in charge.

    • #4
    • March 24, 2013 at 9:13 am
    • Like
  5. Inactive

    Only1Here, New York has a lot of problems! And Mayor Bloomberg is addressing them all!

    Without Bloomberg, who would successfully fight the war against Big Soda? Who would save the city from Big Transfat? Who would stand up against the evils of Big Painkiller?

    • #5
    • March 24, 2013 at 9:52 am
    • Like
  6. Inactive

    Assuming that the dear Mayor achieved his goal, in what way would his system of checks and mental illness limitations on gun ownership have prevented the killing of a bunch of children being housed in a defense free elementary school?

    Adam Lanza never purchased a gun. He was not a gun owner. His mother, imprudent to say the least, had no record of law violation and no history of mental illness. In what way would any of the Mayor’s proposals have impacted this massacre?

    On the other hand, the decision of the education authorities in Connecticut, as in most of America, to foreclose any possibility of defending those kids did.

    Mayor, as with trans-fats, big gulps and salt, you are ideologically disabled, and cannot look in any direction except towards more power for government, regardless that it does little good and great harm.

    • #6
    • March 24, 2013 at 11:32 am
    • Like
  7. Inactive

    I would suggest that much of America has already figured out the anti-gunners. “Registration” and “Backround Checks” is a false front, a Q-ship intended to try to give them SOME leverage, SOME victory from what is turning out to be a huge fiasco. They are quite aware – finally – that real gun banning will not work, but this is the usual hope for “reasonable” laws, never mind that there are plenty of those on the books already. There is little apetite for enforcing any of those – UNTIL we get to actual gun cconfiscation, at which point there will be great enthusiasm. The fact that that might start the biggest fight, literally, that they have ever seen just doesn’t penetrate through the tinfoil. This will not work – but ONLY if the 2A people respond with force and alacrity. And don’t I then smile that Bloomberg is doing his part in stimulating the economy.

    • #7
    • March 25, 2013 at 1:18 am
    • Like
  8. Inactive

    If those defending gun rights are smart, they should make an issue of Bloomberg’s support of a campaign like this: his participation is the absolute guarantee that the current assault on gun rights will not stop with a few “modest” changes.

    But billionaires with a disproportionate influence on policy are fine, so long as they advocate totalitarian policies.

    • #8
    • March 25, 2013 at 5:44 am
    • Like
  9. Member

    The man is scary. And too much influence for such a small brain.

    • #9
    • March 25, 2013 at 6:21 am
    • Like