Students at Western Washington University have reached a turning point in their campus’s hxstory. (For one thing, they’re now spelling it with an X—more on that later.) Activists are demanding the creation of a new college dedicated to social justice activism, a student committee to police offensive speech, and culturally segregated living arrangements at the school, which is in Bellingham, up in the very northwest corner of the state.
Students have the right to push for robust changes to campus conditions, of course. But if administrators care about free speech at all, they will ignore these calls to create an almost cartoonishly autocratic liberal thought police on campus.
Prefacing the hard-leftist demands with “of course” is an odd thing to include, unless one agrees with almost all of the demands. Otherwise, it would have gone without saying. The cartoonishly autocratic “liberal” thought police are exactly what the left wants.
Even a writer for the leftist Daily Beast that sympathizes with them has started to wonder about how far the left has gone, and see much of the problem:
At the heart of this effort lies a bizarrely totalitarian ideology: Student-activists think they have all the answers—everything is settled, and people who dissent are not merely wrong, but actually guilty of something approaching a crime. If they persist in this wrongness, they are perpetuating violence, activists will claim.
It’s not bizarrely totalitarian. It’s completely understandable. Their ideas are untenable, fail when left to reality, failed in experience in the past, and so in order to continue they must criminalize dissent to protect those failed ideas.
This is not new, nor is it limited to college speech codes. It’s endemic to those on the left who know their ideas fail.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch has considered taking legal action against climate change deniers.
The United States’ top lawyer told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the Justice Department has ‘discussed’ the possibility of a civil lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry.
She said any information her office has received has been sent to the FBI in a bid to build a case.
With evidence of data tampering on the side of Manbearpig believers, with predictions about weather that continually fail to materialize, with even believers of anthropogenic global warming not feeling it’s really a threat, it’s come to finding threats to the Manbearpig orthodoxy and going after them as criminals.
Of course, we’ve already seen this with Mark Steyn being sued and targeted for criticizing the Hockey Stick graph.
I started looking for a video on that specifically, but instead found this video of him talking about criminalizing of dissenters to a goverment panel and citing numerous examples:
It’s relatively short, but hits a few extra places dissent is being criminalized, mostly in the realm of climate “science”. Because of course one of the critical parts of the scientific method, right after “observation of experiment” and “conclusions of experiment”, is “organize government to punish potential dissenters”.
Hồ Chí Minh statue outside Saigon City Hall, Hồ Chí Minh City (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
“…we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the
U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of
Thomas Jefferson.”
– President Obama talking to reporters alongside Vietnamese President Truong Tan Sang.
Wow…. Anyone else speechless? The President just compared a man who murdered millions of Vietnamese because they didn’t agree with him politically to Thomas Jefferson who championed freedom and liberty for everyone. The only comparison I can possibly make between the two is that both were involved in revolutionary movements in their respective countries. That is where the similarities stop.
Jefferson wanted liberty and freedom from tyranny while “Uncle Ho” sought to enforce his will on others. Jefferson sought to set men free from government while Uncle Ho sought to enslave them to his ideas. How does one determine that freedom is equal with tyranny unless you think like the statist from George Orwell’s 1984:
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”
If you think along those lines, along the lines of the irrational, along the lines of those who would say or do anything to exert their will over others, maybe, just maybe one can equate liberty and tyranny.
At a June 18 gun control rally in New Hampshire sponsored by New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns group, the name of Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev was read aloud as a recent victim of gun violence.
Remember? This guy:
Throughout the rally, organizers read a list of names of people who had been killed with guns since the Dec. 14 shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
When they read Tsarnaev’s name, pro-gun supporters who were at the rally to counter Bloomberg’s group began shouting, “He’s a terrorist,” according to a report by Tim Buckland of the New Hampshire Union-Leader.
For those who need a reminder, this is what Bloomberg’s poor little victim of gun violence did:
–
Also note this was Bloomberg’s professional paid-for protestors who travel the country in search of ways to disarm, weaken, and control you. Basically the same thing Tamerlan Tsarnaev wanted, but at least he was honest about his hate for America.
Pro-gun attendees said the buses of the rally organizers had Texas license plates, and rally organizers refused to talk to talk to the media. Gun rights supporter Tony Mayfield was in attendance and said: “This is joke. We have, for all intents and purposes, a corporation from out of town doing this little publicity stunt here.”
According to the Union-Leader, there was violence at the rally. Two persons–including a police officer–were assaulted and one person was arrested.
A spokesperson for Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s (R-NH) said that “well-heeled out-state-groups have gone on the attack against the [Senator].”
Bloomberg and all the other anti-gun, anti-rights, anti-freedom wannabe dictators in the Ruling Class are absolute scum. Bloomberg is a guy who just had his minions go out to intimidate different states around the country in order that he, a billionaire who rides in a caravan with guards armed with full-auto weapons, can force you to be defenseless. He agrees with the Tsarnaevs that you should be dominated and defenseless, he’s just got different tools to those ends, and believes he should be your master.
It came from Slate, which “of course” would put a terrorist down as a poor, innocent victim of gun violence who was really and honor student trying to fix up his life.
Yesterday, at an event organized by Mayors Against Illegal Guns in Concord, N.H., a list of names of “victims of gun violence” was read aloud. Today, one name stands out: that of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bombing suspect killed during a shootout with police. The MAIG list came from Slate‘s interactive, “How Many People Have Been Killed By Guns Since Newtown?” The Atlantic Wire and others are asking: Should Tsarnaev’s name be on that interactive?
Of course it should. The interactive is not a list of “victims” of gun violence—in fact, the interactive never uses that word, for this very reason. It is a pure accounting of deaths, provided, as our original partner in the project @GunDeaths notes, “regardless of cause and without comment.”
Thing is, it’s being used as a stat for gun control activists – that’s why they’re keeping track. Lefty Slate is perfectly happy to pad their rolls of poor innocent victims, regardless of what they’re claiming now, in order to make gun violence look worse; when in reality, terrorist killed by guns (or knives, JDAMs, SUVs, rattlesnakes, orbital plasma cannons, falls, self-detonation, mad cow, or anything else) are all good things.
the list from which the activists were reading — which was compiled by Slate and includes more than 6,000 names — contained at least 10 murder suspects, including the alleged cop killer Christopher Dorner, who was the subject of a massive, high-profile manhunt in February, and apparently killed himself in a cabin after a gun fight with police.
Why would you keep a comprehensive list of people killed in shootings after Newtown if you’re not interested in building sympathy for them as victims? The point of the list is, or should be, to drive home the tragedy of so many innocent lives taken. If you’re going to toss non-innocents like Tsarnaev, Dorner, et al. in there, you might as well ask the Pentagon for an estimate of Al Qaeda fighters shot on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan and toss them in too. They’re all casualties of the demon device known as firearms, aren’t they? Come to think of it, didn’t Hitler shoot himself?
It’s an … interesting political project that has room for Tamerlan Tsarnaev on its roll call of the fallen but not the people he murdered because of a difference in the precise means of lethal force used.
Again, as above, Slate says “of course it should” include them.
To briefly hit on this, I remember either Evan Sayet mentioning it when talking about leftists some time after his great “How Modern Liberals Think” speech, or someone discussing it, and noting that much of the root of the modern leftist thought comes out of World War I, when the left decided that conflict was to be avoided at all costs; much like discrimination is to be avoided – regardless of whether it’s just making good decisions on the available information. Avoiding conflict is so important that the tools of conflict – even if used for defense – are considered horrible. So the individual who owns guns for self-defense and will use them if threatened (but only if threatened), is viewed as someone who has justified violence (because self defense is a basic right of all beings). To the brain-dead indoctrinated left, there is no difference between self-defense and terrorism, and all violence is evil (except grievance-based violence or their own violence to gain power, of course) – and this means that Tsarnaev and Dorner are “victims” of a “gun culture”.
Much like Dorner’s manifesto, they can engage in violence or support aggressors against peaceful people and simply ignore the mad inconsistency – because if the peaceful people aren’t defenseless victims, they probably deserved it somehow. And if they are defenseless victims of the wrong political ideology, they deserved it for their thoughts.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) announced Thursday that the Senate will “take a pause” and return to consideration of gun legislation at a later date.
But they are not stopping.
“Yesterday, President Obama said it was a shameful day for the Senate, and it probably was, I agree. But we should make no mistake: This debate is not over, in fact this fight is just beginning,” Reid said on the Senate floor Thursday.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday said passage of tougher gun controls is “inevitable,” projecting optimism less than 24 hours after the Senate voted down legislation central to President Obama’s strategy to reduce gun violence.
“It’s a matter of time,” Pelosi said Thursday during a press briefing in the Capitol. “It might be inconceivable to the NRA that this might happen; it’s inevitable to us.”
The anti-rights leftist gun-grabber movement will always push for tyranny, and will not stop.
“Something must be done, because that’s what the American people expect and what they deserve,” she said. “We’re just not taking no for an answer.”
Pelosi and her anti-rights ilk will never give up, they will push to disarm us, and they do not stop. But she will be given no for an answer. When she refuses to take no for an answer and inflicts her whims upon us, she fully becomes a tyrant.
–
Andrew Wilkow today noted that a simple example of how the Second Amendment works is a metaphor with a man as the government and a woman as the people. The woman is armed.
The man asks why the woman needs a gun, and says she shouldn’t have it. She says “I need it so you won’t rape me”. The man angrily assures her that he will not rape her. “Then you will never have a problem with my gun,” answers the woman.
The Manchin-Toomey “wrote it on our yacht” background check-prelude to registration bill went down 54-46, failing to get the 60 votes to pass.
The AWB goes down 40/60. Remember a few weeks ago when Reid claimed they didn’t have even 40 votes for it? He wasn’t kidding. They barely ended up with that much. It’ll be a few minutes before the roll is up, but assuming Republicans voted against it unanimously, that means no fewer than 15 Democrats joined them.
It’s a good start to stalling the tyrannical aspirations of government.
Today’s vote is a damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington. More than 40 U.S. senators would rather turn their backs on the 90 percent of Americans who support comprehensive background checks than buck the increasingly extremist wing of the gun lobby.
Why is it that anti-gun tyrants love using the number 90% so much? They make up numbers saying guns are going to Mexico at a rate of 90%, and they claim 90% of people support draconian checks as a step towards registration, confiscation, and obliteration of gun rights. Do they just love targeting minorities of 10%? Oh, that’s right, they do.
Soon he’ll fade back into obscurity once the schtick of having a lying Brit who threatened violence and lectures down to Americans wears off. Oh, and it has.
President Obama angrily blamed the defeat Wednesday of his centerpiece gun-control proposal on lies spread by the National Rifle Association, calling it “a pretty shameful day for Washington.”
“The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill,” Mr. Obama said in the White House rose garden about 90 minutes after the vote. “It came down to politics.”
There’s also a certain type of projection on the left. They accuse others of lying while they do. The NRA warned of true objectives.
“They claimed that it would create some sort of big-brother gun registry, even though it did the opposite,” Mr. Obama said. “This pattern of spreading untruths … served a purpose. A minority in the U.S. Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms, even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery. It’s not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans just voted against that idea.”
Of necessity, to work, it had to create a big brother gun registry – which would be either an amendment or a future bill when this one was found. There was no secret that Democrats were pushing for a big-brother gun registry. But, as Levar Burton would say, don’t take my word for it – take NY Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer’s:
There’s that 90% statistic again, too. They just love it.
And again, the “families” are being led by Democrat propagandists. I say “families” because Mark Mattioli isn’t represented, nor are many other Newtown families who don’t hold the same opinions as those who are politically aligned and campaigning for the Democrats’ rights-control schemes.
“You’ve got to send the right people to Washington,” he told voters. “That requires strength and it requires persistence. I see this as just Round One. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it.”
The American people and those who’ve fought for liberty don’t want their tyranny.
We didsend the right people to Washington. We sent Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.
But do note what Obama said in there. The meaning is clear.
…requires strength and it requires persistence. I see this as just Round One. Sooner or later, we are going to get this…
He uses some of the Newtown families as props, and it seems many of them are willing props – but he doesn’t care about them any more than he cared about the hundreds of dead children in Mexico murdered by his Fast and Furious program.
And lastly, but not least, the Assault Weapons ban and the limitation on the size of magazines, let me say this as clearly as I can: this is just the beginning.
… the Newtown families, political novices just a few months ago, are proving to be savvy, effective advocates as they promote the gun legislation that has finally begun to move through the Senate. The families are well-educated, and many are well-off. They have been polished and sharp on TV. They’re mostly non-political, but quite accomplished in their own fields. With access to money and media, they’re using persistence, visibility — and, most all, their unique moral authority — to help prod Senate action. They also have their own lobbyists — several of them, in fact.
They’re pushing anti-rights legislation. Maybe some among them think it’ll “save children”, but as I illustrated last time, the things they’re asking for wouldn’t have prevented Sandy Hook. They are pushing for exactly what anti-gun groups have been pushing for for years, though.
They’re pushing for something that is a step towards widespread disarmament, emotionally pushing for things that they feel are so critical that they “must” be done, emotionally pushing for things so hard that “now is the time” before anyone starts to look at the bigger picture calmly and at the long-term implications of what happens when citizens are left disarmed.
Then there are the comments by their Democrat political handlers:
“These are smart, articulate people, who don’t have a scintilla of Washington about them,” said Matt Bennett of the centrist Democratic group Third Way, which has been helping the families navigate D.C. “But they virtually cannot be denied a meeting. There are not many groups of people that can get a meeting with any senator they want, whenever they want.”
He’s a lying about his group. They Democrats came in and the families have been embraced by the Democrat party and anti-rights, anti-gun citizen disarmament groups as the heartwrenching emotional story they need to use to acquire more power. There’s keeping rights, restoring rights, and loss of rights. They’re pushing for loss of citizen rights, and they’ve got leftist Democrats guiding them the whole way. There is nothing “third way” about Bennett’s group, either – they’re a partisan Democrat group used to target low-information moderates. Their notable members include such partisan leftist Democrats as Kathleen “F the Hatch Act” Sebelius and Ken “Boot Stamping on a Human Face Forever” Salazar.
He is right about the demands they can make. They can portray anyone who rejects them as devoid of sympathy, of being a cruel monster who wants dead children. They and their handlers are exploiting the respect we offer the grieving to push their agenda.
A group of experienced operators is guiding these families — to a degree that has irritated some pro-gun Republicans. An uber-strategist for the families is Ricki Seidman, a familiar face at the top levels of Democratic politics ever since she ran the Clinton-Gore campaign’s famous 1992 war room. Seidman, a senior principal with TSD Communications, was Vice President Joe Biden’s communications director during the 2008 general election, and helped the White House win confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotmayor.
Bennett’s Third Way connected the families with a lobbying firm, Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, that set up more than 25 Hill meetings this week alone. And Lara Bergthold, a veteran of Democratic presidential campaigns now with Griffin, Schein in Los Angeles, is helping to manage the media onslaught.
These are political operatives using the families as props (at best). It would be nice to believe that the families in their grief are simply pawns in this, but then there are comments like this:
“This is now part of my day-to-day life, and it is a full-time job to me and my family,” Jillian Soto said. “To be honest with you, I still don’t know how the mechanics in Washington work. I still find it absurd that senators can even say my sister wasn’t murdered with an assault rifle. She was shot multiple times in front of her kids, and that’s not OK to me. It’s not OK to most Americans.” (As her raw language indicates, Soto is working with Bloomberg’s group.)
An assault rifle is select-fire, so no, she wasn’t murdered with an assault rifle. Those are highly restricted and have been since the GCA of 1934. The killer did not have an assault rifle. So no, she wasn’t. Soto’s indignation is intended to get you mad at pro-rights senators for questioning her – with her dead sister as a moral bulwark, she can scream and it’s considered callous and heartless and horrific to correct her. The constant push against the rights of citizens, ignoring the actual data, is now, to her, “part of my day-to-day life and it is a full time job to me and my family”. She’s going to press to restrict your rights full time based on the acts of a madman – a madman who would never be stopped by the solutions she champions, and if her solutions pass, a lone madman who in time will be replaced by an administration of madmen – as history shows us again and again.
This is a very clever political movement being handled by the Democrats. They’re going to dance in the blood of those children as long as they can to get more power.
What started as a support group is now a lobbying force unlike any other to descend on Capitol Hill. The family members typically begin their pitch to senators softly, telling the story of the child that they lost. They gently say they could not have imagined themselves in this position, but they’re doing it to honor the memory of their children. They say they’re supporters of the Second Amendment, and just want to have a conversation.
They don’t want a conversation. That’s a lie, just the same as their “I’m not racist, I have a black friend” claim of support of the Second Amendment. They have demands.
But there’s nothing subtle about the way some of them conclude their visits: by leaving behind a color card with a photo of their slain relative. Nicole Hockley, who introduced President Barack Obama in Hartford this week, hands senators a card with three photos of her son Dylan, who was 6 when he was gunned down. One frame shows him grinning, in a Superman shirt.
“Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06 – 12/14/12,” the card says. “Honor his life. Stand with us for change. NOW IS THE TIME.”
“Now is the time” is the kind of fierce urgent emotional demand that stifles debate. The entire purpose is to generate an emotional response and demand NOW NOW NOW without stopping to question why or what is being done.
The universal background checks they want, the universal registration that background checks require to be complete, the denial to citizens to actually bear, trade, or acquire arms, the denial of citizens to own modern arms – none of that would’ve prevented the murders at Sandy Hook. But they demand action “NOW NOW NOW” because that stifles debate. They demand “NOW NOW NOW” and any question of why, or what these things will change is stopped by bringing up their dead children. The argument for immediacy and the argument for necessity are well-known pleas of tyrants, and are the hallmark of liberal fascism, where something must be done for your own good right NOW… Again, if you take the time to ask about why, or what the long-term effects are (say as in “we need to pass it to see what’s in it” Obamacare), you’re shouted down.
–
I’m a veteran. When I write things like “for those who’ve fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know”, I mean it. It’s not a cliche, it’s a reality. There are a lot of people, myself included, who fought for our rights and our Constitution. Our nation is unique in that we don’t swear an allegiance to a president or a king or an autocrat. We swear our oath to a piece of paper. We swear it to a contract made by free people to create a government that serves us. We swear our oaths to that Constitution and the protection of those natural rights it guarantees.
The natural right to self defense against oppression, against tyranny large and small, whether it be a dictatorial government or a lone criminal, is something that many men and women have fought and died for. The forces against the natural right to self defense are those who would be our masters, who demand autocracy and think they know best and should tell us how to live – tyrants.
The demand that we surrender rights that our forefathers and sometimes our friends fought and died for is unacceptable.
Those rights were fought for, and men and women died for those rights, so that people back home could be safe with the protections those natural rights provide. They the honored dead and we the veterans did not fight for those rights so that those rights could be hastily abandoned to a political cry of “now is the time”.
No. Never is the time.
—
The Newtown families, if truly driven by grief, will still have my sympathy, but what they demand in the name of children and family who would not even be protected by the unconstitutional laws they demand is anathema to those who have served and those who remember our honored dead who fought for those rights. The contract that our honored dead and we the veterans signed was to protect those rights. Against more than two hundred years of adversaries within and without we’ve fought to preserve those rights with millions of men and women who’ve served and hundreds of thousands who’ve died in service – all to protect those rights.
The emotional demand that one tragedy, manipulated by fiendish politicians for their own power and demand to control the American people, mean that we the citizens give up the rights bought and paid for in blood by our honored dead and our veterans and often ourselves as veterans is one that can only be answered with a resounding no.
Today those demanding the surrender of our rights and our arms do so with words, because we have arms. With history as our guide, when we have no arms, they won’t use words anymore. This is again why we have fought for those rights.
–
There may be solutions to limit the horrors in the world, but abrogating the right of self defense that is intrinsic to the contract of our safe and secure society is not an option. We may still have individual madmen and criminals, but we have no tyrants here – our tragedies are counted in ones and tens but never in millions.
Stalin famously said that a single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. To a dictator’s perspective, he’s right.
To a free man’s perspective and to a patriot perspective, that’s not the case. A single death is a tragedy, and a million deaths is a million individual tragedies. The twenty-six individual tragedies at Sandy Hook do not outweigh the incomprehensible human suffering and death endured by millionsof individual citizens who fought so that we could live free covered by the protections of the natural rights our Constitution provides. The willing and also unwilling sacrafices of those millions of individual tragedies and sufferings thus prevented millions more individual tragedies. Those who fought and died knew that they fought for that piece of paper and the rights it guaranteed.
The actions of one madman and the desire to correct those twenty-six tragedies can be understood. They are fathomable. The rows upon rows of graves of those who fought to prevent greater tragedies are often beyond comprehension and thus some folks can miss the far bigger picture. They aren’t seen as a million individual tragedies and lives of suffering undertaken for a larger cause to ensure greater rights that protect us all – those lost lives are right in front of us and yet some forget both those lost lives and the payments in blood they made on liberties.
Each one is an individual tragedy.
Each individual tragedy was undertaken as an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
And yet there are those who would still trade away that liberty bought at so dear a price for temporary security… and they would soon find themselves with neither.
One of the gun-grabbing members of Michael Bloomberg’s organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, recently found himself trying to lure a man into a sexual encounter through the liberal use of alcohol. When the charm and alcohol didn’t do the trick, James ‘Jay’ Schiliro (R) decided to go a different route – firing a handgun into a wall in an attempt at intimidation.
The mayor who, as the title suggests, is against illegal guns, was forced to hand over his firearm collection, and has been charged with several crimes.
Yup.
According to the Examiner, Schiliro was one of 600 mayors who recently signed a letter asking the U.S. Senate to enact tougher gun laws.
You know, the kind that would keep a drunken mayor from demanding gay sex with a handgun. Is that anywhere in President Obama’s executive orders?
Of course people like Bloomberg need guns, and of course other ruling class tyrants like Schiliro need guns. Some just choose to exercise their power in different ways.
That’s New York City’s nasty little fascist mayor, the ersatz and erstwhile “Republican” who used the party to sneak into Gracie Mansion in the wake of the Giuliani administration’s successful war on street crime, and then double-crossed the GOP in his bald-faced but successful attempt to subvert term limits, lecturing David Gregory in his Boston honk that he knows what’s best for New Yorkers — and us.
Yes, it’s the Soda Jerk himself, tossing his pint-sized weight around as he attempts to remain politically viable after his reign as the successor to such corrupt and incompetent wretches as Jimmy Walker, William O’Dwyer, Abe Beame and David Dinkins mercifully comes to an end. Let’s unpack a little of what the Terror of Tinytown had to say.
We’re not banning anything. All we’re saying is, we want to show you just how big the cup is. If you want 32 ounces, take two cups to your seat. If you want 64, carry four. But our hope is, if you only take one, you won’t go back.
If you believe that, Bloomberg has a bridge to Brooklyn to sell you. And to which the only proper response — the one that until New York turned into a city of Upper West Side conformist sheep he would have justly received — is (to quote Kurt Schlichter) “bite me.”
It’s a good post, worth reading, though he had to go back and update it to make note of Bloomberg’s new $12,000,000 anti-gun ad campaign, all for your own good.
It’s a campaign against individual autonomy and the freedom to live your life – all for your own good.
“I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom”
I found myself asking the same questiosn Allahpundit did before even reading it – who in the bloody hell is “we”? Who is this “we” that has the authority to stomp all over citizen rights? Who is this “we” and how did they get this power? Who is this “we” and how is this justified? Who is this “we”, who the heck do they think they are, and do they really need to be shown the consequences of stepping on US citizen rights?
The $12 million ad blitz targeting senators wavering on gun control will be just the beginning, Mayor Bloomberg warned Sunday.
“I have a responsibility … to try to make this country safer,” Bloomberg said on “Meet the Press” when asked if he’d spend big-time in next year’s elections to target the National Rifle Association and members of Congress for opposing gun restrictions.
To make this country safer for tyrants. He’s a big city billionaire who’s decided to go out and drop millions of dollars to destroy your rights. Feel safer yet?
“If I can do that by spending some money, and taking the NRA from being the only voice to being one of the voices, so the public can really understand the issues, then I think my money will be well spent and I think I have an obligation to do that,” he said.
“If 90% of the public wants something, and their representatives vote against that, common sense says they are going to have a price to pay for that,” Bloomberg said, referring to the proportion of people polls show support universal background checks.
The surveys that came up with those numbers are sketchy at best. When you explain to people exactly how “universal background checks” don’t work, and do fail, and do lead to registration and confiscation, then people start to see why there is still a sizeable group that opposes “universal background checks“.
Bloomberg said the country must not lose the opportunity to crack down on guns offered by the Newtown massacre. “It would be a great tragedy for this country and for tens of thousands of lives if (the opportunity) is lost,” he said.
Never let a good crisis go to waste. This is an opportunity to seize on emotion, to act in the moment, to do things they couldn’t normally do because heads aren’t clear yet. People haven’t bothered to look at the long-term effects, or even the short-term effects, and how none of the actions Bloomberg or his henchmen would take has anything to do with safety, but has everything to do with control. When people do look at it, they see that none of the actions would’ve prevented the murders in Connecticut, and the only people impacted are those who do nothing wrong.
Also, that story carries a couple of nifty visuals of media bias. Contrast this picture of Bloomberg:
To this of Wayne LaPierre:
Gee, media bias much?
For examples of Bloomberg’s new ads, we have “Responsible” and “Family”, in which a scruffy bearded guy dressed like a hunter tells us he’s a hunter and talks about family and things, all the while pointing a shotgun at waist-level and with his fingers in, on, and around the trigger and trigger guard; or, as Mary Katherine Ham at HotAir rather eloquently puts it:
Forgive me if I don’t feel like giving up my rights as a law-abiding citizen to a billionaire mayor who can’t instruct his recruits to keep their booger hooks off the bang switch.
Seriously? You expect us to buy that crap? With personal crusades against soda, guns, smoking, trans fats, and pretty much anything fun, you expect us to believe any of this crap?
Sorry, not buying it. And there aren’t many people who will be, either.
ShortTimer
JBH
The Patriot Perspective 
