NRA Ad from a few weeks back, good for the juxtaposition of what Schumer says one week, and what he says another:
NRA Ad from a few weeks back, good for the juxtaposition of what Schumer says one week, and what he says another:
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.
Let’s start with this story and quote via HotAir:
“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 next piece, via NY Daily News:
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.
Not on law-abiding citizens who want to buy guns, of course. But they oppose and will sue employers who don’t want to hire thieves, rapists, and murderers:
Should it be a federal crime for businesses to refuse to hire ex-convicts? Yes, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which recently released 20,000 convoluted words of regulatory “guidance” to direct businesses to hire more felons and other ex-offenders.
Most businesses perform criminal background checks on job applicants, but the EEOC guidance frowns on such checks and creates new legal tripwires that could spark federal lawsuits. One EEOC commissioner who opposed the new policy, Constance Barker, warned in April that “the only real impact the new Guidance will have will be to scare business owners from ever conducting criminal background checks. . . . The Guidance tells them that they are taking a tremendous risk if they do.”
If a background check discloses a criminal offense, the EEOC expects a company to do an intricate “individualized assessment” that will somehow prove that it has a “business necessity” not to hire the ex-offender (or that his offense disqualifies him for a specific job). Former EEOC General Counsel Donald Livingston, in testimony in December to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, warned that employers could be considered guilty of “race discrimination if they choose law abiding applicants over applicants with criminal convictions” unless they conduct a comprehensive analysis of the ex-offender’s recent life history.
It is difficult to overstate the EEOC’s zealotry on this issue. The agency is demanding that one of Mr. Livingston’s clients—the Freeman Companies, a convention and corporate events planner—pay compensation to rejected job applicants who lied about their criminal records.
The biggest bombshell in the new guidelines is that businesses complying with state or local laws that require employee background checks can still be targeted for EEOC lawsuits.
The article goes on to note that a security company that guards nuclear facilities was sued by the Obama EEOC in 2010 for refusing to hire a twice-convicted thief – even though state laws said the security company isn’t allowed to hire criminals.
Background checks for criminals going into a job where they’d be armed guards? Bad. Background checks, registration, permits and confiscation against joe citizen when he wants to exercise his rights? Good.
This leftist-progressive modern liberal agenda does invariably elevate the failed, evil and wrong at the expense of the good and successful (just as Evan Sayet said).
Reading the first few paragraphs of this Bloomberg article really begins to give a feel for what the Obama administration is:
When President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, the biggest question he’ll face will be how to get an ambitious second-term agenda through a divided Congress.
The answer: Go around it.
On climate change, gun control, gay rights, and even immigration, the White House has signaled a willingness to circumvent lawmakers through the use of presidential power. Already, plans are being laid to unleash new executive orders, regulations, signing statements and memorandums designed to push Obama’s programs forward and cement his legacy, according to administration aides and allies.
“The big things that we need to get done, we can’t wait on,” said White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer. “If we can take action, we will take action.”
Congress is unpopular because there’s no face to congress other than that of the whiny weakling John Boehner. The right hates congress because they’re constantly surrendering, and the left hates congress because the right in congress isn’t surrendering enough. The low information voter just hears complaints about congress and believes it, rather than looking at their own representative.
There is no congressional media office out trying to paint a picture of congress as a benevolent deliberative body in the same way that Obama has his numerous official and unofficial propaganda wings. Half the country that supports Obama’s agenda (until they find themselves targeted) represents a great amount of support. Half the country that supports their half of congress doesn’t support the other half of congress, so popularity remains low.
And in this void, with the elected representatives of the people both hated and demonized, comes that powerful figure to simply work around them. Checks and balances exist for a reason, and working around those checks and balances – imposed by free people who vote for their representatives to represent them – is someone who will simply make things happen. There is a certain allure to a “man of action” who will make decisions while others deliberate – it’s those exciting, dynamic “men of action” who seize power that make for compelling stories. A president who merely presides and works to uphold the rule of law and execute the orders issued by the citizens through congress isn’t as fascinating as a heroic figure who goes it alone and tells off the yammering talkers.
But in governmental context, that’s a dictator.
Just today, Obama went out asking for police chiefs and law enforcement to support his assault on the Constitution.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama kept up pressure on Congress Monday to pass tough new gun legislation, seeking help from law enforcement leaders in three communities that have suffered the horrors of mass shootings.
At a White House meeting, Obama said that no group is more important in the gun debate and he said he recognizes the issue “elicits a lot of passion all across the country.” But Obama also said he believes Congress will respond to appeals from police.
“Hopefully if law enforcement officials who are dealing with this stuff every single day can come to some basic consensus in terms of steps that we need to take,” he said, “Congress is going to be paying attention to them, and we’ll be able to make progress.”
Law enforcement leaders are bureaucrat politicians. They’re there to avoid liability and make decisions that will make sure they can retire. They take their oaths less seriously than their desire to lord over and control populations, because they’re used to lording over and controlling a police force, and see “the public” as something else to be controlled – and all of that lording over and controlling makes for a stable element for them to retire from.
Law enforcement leaders often do things that are illegal as well. One rather famous one was drug checkpoints inside the US in the case of Indianapolis v Edmond. The short short version is you can’t go violating the 4th Amendment “in the general interest of crime control”. Stopping everyone on the road and searching them for anything illegal may be effective, but it makes for a police state. A police state, to a police administrator, is an okay thing.
Keep in mind police already get special rights when it comes to the Second Amendment, whether active or retired. Some animals are more equal than others. There are good reasons for those statutes, and in free states they mirror what citizens can already do. In states ruled with iron fists, they give special privileges to the state enforcers.
Out in San Diego, the anti-rights police chief there says that the destruction of gun culture and massive gun confiscation can be done in a matter of a generation:
San Diego Police Chief, William Lansdowne said in an interview that the implementation of new gun laws will take guns off the streets of America within a generation.
According to San Diego 6, Lansdowne said that it may take a generation but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws like Senator Dianne Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban:
“Chief Lansdowne, who plays an active role in the western region of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) association, said it may take a generation but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws like Senator Diane Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban legislation. Some of the items his organization is addressing include; a ban on assault weapons, restricting high-capacity magazines, closing loopholes that allow firearm sales between private owners without background checks, and implementing much stricter background checks by using a comprehensive database.”
Ban modern guns, ban effective guns, ban citizens from selling to each other without begging permission of the state, and have the state simply deny everyone while tracking everyone for further confiscation. Shall not be infringed is meaningless to this bureaucrat cop.
Lansdowne called for tougher gun laws in an interview with KPBS, and praised President Obama for his initiative on gun control.
“I could not be more supportive of the president for taking the position he has,” he said.
“I think it’s courageous with the politics involved in this process. But I think it’s going to eventually make the country safer and certainly safer for my officers that have to respond to these calls.“
And there’s the key. As a bureaucrat, he thinks this will make the mob he lords over and controls safer. It puts the individual citizen at a disadvantage (especially the woman who now is given the “right” to fistfight her rapist). It also ignores that the police are not responsible for your safety. They can’t be everywhere at once, so they can’t be held accountable for your individual misfortune. But they can make you into a criminal if you fight back; and they can make you into a criminal who can’t own tools of self defense; or someone who they will prosecute later for using those tools to defend yourself. Police don’t stop crime. To quote the intro to Law & Order, the police investigate crime and district attorneys prosecute the offenders. Nowhere in there are you defended – you’re the body found by the jogger at the beginning of the episode.
The bureaucrat cop doesn’t care that the public is disarmed at all. He isn’t disarmed. You’re the one without the gun – not him. If he’s in law enforcement for too long, he gets that jaded “everyone sucks” mindset, wherein the only people who matter are cops, and everyone else is going to be a criminal sooner or later. That isn’t the purpose of the police in a free society.
Lansdowne believes that the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut weakened the gun lobby’s power and has opened the door for new gun control legislation.
“We broke the NRA,” Lansdowne said off-camera.
This would be the equivalent of him saying “within a generation, with Connor’s reforms, we should be able to stomp out any integrationist ideas…” and off-camera “we broke MLK”. And yes, I will keep right on going there – gun control is racist.
Lansdowne’s position on gun control appears to be in the minority among sheriffs across the nation, however.
As CNSNews.com previously reported, sheriffs from Florida to California have stated publicly that they will not comply with any new gun control measures proposed by the federal government.
That’s the good news. Sheriffs, unlike police chiefs, are ultimately accountable. They have elections to own up to, and voters to be responsible to. A police chief answers only to a mayor – and many mayors have used the Curley Effect to totally destroy their cities, leading to police chiefs who are simply their paramilitary functionaries. Most places, it takes more work to destroy a county than it does to destroy a city.
Something else that police chiefs as well as outright politicians will say are things like this line:
Still, one murder is one too many. One illegal gun is one too many, too, because when someone is murdered in New York City — although that happens much less frequently than in the past — odds are an illegal handgun was used.
Mind you in NYC, an “illegal gun” pretty much means any gun that isn’t owned by the police or political cronies of the mayor. But this is also a Broken Window Fallacy argument.
Due to all the peaceable people willing to surrender their rights for what they think will be safety, there are a lot more people who are harmed, hurt, assaulted, robbed, murdered, and raped because they lack tools to fight back. But these crime statistics that would be prevented with defensive gun usage never materialize. In the rest of the country, DGUs are overlooked because they are underreported – if a crime is deterred, there is nothing to report, and the citizen who deters it is unlikely to call the police just to be hassled for a DGU.
Taking the idea that “one murder is too many” into “so we must disarm all the citizens” means that there will be more murders. And the “odds are an illegal handgun was used” statement is because virtually all handguns in NYC are illegal. But Bloomberg and his lackeys, like all dictators, can never control a populace entirely. Prison guards work very hard to do so and know that it can’t be done. Bloomberg then takes the usual route of all dictators and claims it’s because his system isn’t implemented everywhere. The problem is there’s still freedom somewhere, and he must destroy it. Police chiefs already have a subjected population – their officers, and a subjected area – their city.
Actual officers’ groups often oppose gun control, as they are the ones answering the calls and going to see people who were unable to resist criminals. A few police chiefs also understand this, but the vocal ones, and the ones calling for gun control yesterday, today, and tomorrow, are those that hate that they can’t control everyone (thus destroying all risks and making their life easy).
Expect to see more titles like that.
Contrast with the last leftist hypocrite from a few minutes ago.
Update: May as well toss in this hypocrisy from leftist group Media Matters, that bought guns illegally. It was for protection they “need” of course. Because some needs are greater than others. Namely, their needs are greater than yours.