Loathsome nanny state mayor spends $12M on gun banning ads… with no gun ban

posted at 11:01 am on March 24, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

I don’t know how many millions of dollars Michael Bloomberg is sitting on in his bank account – and frankly, it’s none of my business – but if he keeps blowing it at this pace, he may run the tank dry before too long. The king of all nanny state ideals is dumping another $12M into ad buys to pump up support for new anti-second amendment initiatives. But if you watch this latest, tug at your heartstrings, down home advertisement, there’s one thing conspicuously missing.

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. The ads, in 13 states, will blanket those senators’ districts during an Easter Congressional recess that is to be followed by debate over the legislation.

In a telling sign of how much the white-hot demands for gun control have been tempered by political reality, Mr. Bloomberg’s commercials make no mention of an assault weapons ban once sought by the White House and its allies, instead focusing on the more achievable goal of universal background checks.

For all the talk I keep hearing from people like Joe Scarborough about how the NRA is “losing its power” and is “out of touch with real American gun owners,” it’s kind of odd that the ‘assault weapons” ban has essentially vanished from the radar. Having lost that battle, the push now turns to the hazy and potentially dangerous implementation of universal background checks and the creations of lists of Americans who have been convicted of no crime whatsoever who may still have their Second Amendment rights taken away.

The NRA is currently in talks with some of the wavering Senators, such as Joe Manchin, on this subject.

Republicans have been squeamish for a variety of reasons — namely over calls to require retailers to keep background check records.

But if the NRA stays neutral and decides not to “score” a vote for a Manchin plan on its annual scorecard, Manchin — and the overall bill — would have a much better chance.

Manchin, who calls himself a “proud West Virginia NRA member,” declined to discuss his negotiations with the group…

In a statement, Manchin added his efforts are “dedicated to preventing criminals and those adjudicated mentally ill from purchasing firearms, and not criminalizing law-abiding gun owners.”

While I don’t expect it to have any measurable effect on violence, there is probably some room for discussion on background checks if only for the sake of letting some of the middle-ground legislators make it look like they’re “doing something,” but Manchin needs to tread carefully. There should be nobody in Congress thinking about backing down until there are clear definitions on things such as who is keeping track of lists of gun owners and – perhaps more importantly – who will decide which people wind up on lists of people who will be denied during the course of a check. Manchin makes reference to two groups. One is “criminals” – presumably those already convicted of violent crimes. Well, it’s already illegal for them to buy guns, so this is yet another case of not needing new laws, but needing enforcement of laws already on the books.

The other category is far more troubling. Those who have been “adjudicated mentally ill” sounds great in a TV sound bite, as everyone’s minds immediately turn to the violently deranged, Manson wannabe locked up in a rubber room after trying to boil the neighbor’s cat. But how will they define which people cross that line and who will be making the determination on a case by case basis? If your wife dies and you lose your job and you go to a therapist for “depression” treatment, will you be on this list? And if you finish your mourning and get a new job next year and are feeling pretty good, can you get off that list? Again… if you have committed no crime beyond the normal failings of the human body and mind which can, from time to time, afflict many of us, will the government deem you “too dangerous” to enjoy all of your constitutionally assured rights?

Manchin needs to be very careful here, as do the rest of the DC denizens who will have this plan shoved onto their plates shortly. Gun grabbing proponents like to make fun of any “slippery slope” arguments regarding gun grabbing. But this is about the slickest slope we’ve seen yet.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Very likely. Trolls live for threads like this, where they use the bodies of dead children as a soapbox and think nothing of it.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 10:02 AM

She must have thought I was talking to her.

CurtZHP on March 25, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Newsbusters has a very amusing clip of the Reverand Al Sharpton bemoaning the opposition to Mayor Bloomberg’s gun control effort as “anti-Semitism”. Yes, THAT Al Sharpton!

Marcus on March 25, 2013 at 10:20 AM


nonpartisan on March 25, 2013 at 3:58 AM


Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Glad to see the nanny in chief waste his dough. That bloomy is pushing the effort wil insure its failure. Tired of the ego-maniac midget telling me what to do.

StevC on March 25, 2013 at 10:36 AM

While the idea of a “background check” seems harmless enough, the mechanisms are already in place. Prospective buyers can be cleared through a livescan, which is a DOJ criminal database. More than that is probably unworkable.

The bigger problem is that this is yet another instance where liberal politicians want to create some new government “list.” We don’t need it. We don’t need government given another excuse to compile our personal information to be used however and whenever the government — or some hacker — sees fit.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on March 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM

I think it’s funny to hear libs like Bloomberg telling us we’re just going to have to give up antiquated ideas like thinking we have a right to privacy, and realize that we’re living in a different kind of world now.

Do you think Bloomberg knows that the right to privacy was created by the Supreme Court (in Griswold v. Connecticut) and was used as the basis for recognizing a constitutional right to abortion (in Roe v. Wade)?

So if Americans no longer have a right to privacy, it follows logically that we also no longer have a right to abortion, since the right to abortion derives from the right to privacy.

Good luck navigating your way down this slippery slope, Bloomie!

AZCoyote on March 25, 2013 at 11:20 AM

I think his syphilis is now infected his brain. He is stark raving mad! Just plain mad!

Delsa on March 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Elections have consequences…. I’m sure NY can afford this. Typical liberals. I bet the hurrican victims could use that money. Bloomberg is an idiot.

ultracon on March 25, 2013 at 12:29 PM

…how many homeless, hungry, needy in NYC could Bloomberg have helped with that $12 million rather than use it to push his agenda?

easyt65 on March 26, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Obummer must have offered this asshole something very good for him to put up 12 million of his own money for gun control! Nanny Mike knows this bill will never pass Congress so it must be a really good offer for him to throw away that much money!Obama loves suckers like this jerk!!

Jersey Dan on March 26, 2013 at 7:55 PM