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

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Can anyone tell me why he’s NOT a democrat?

We know he’s a socialist, authoritarian, progressive, pathologically incapable of leaving people the HELL alone….

so … why?

lm10001 on March 24, 2013 at 11:05 AM

“I need my gun myself!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsdZKCh6RsU

claudius on March 24, 2013 at 11:06 AM

At the rate certain people seemed to be able to diagnose veterans with PTSD without any medical evidence, I am worried more and more veterans will be denied their second amendment rights.

fourdeucer on March 24, 2013 at 11:11 AM

I don’t know

I love you show Jazz, but man that is the truth, you really just do not know. All the clamor for an assault weapons ban was always nothing more than a distraction. It was a boogie man to be chased down a blind ally, to lead conservatives off on a wild goose chase.

The Democrats knew they had about as much of a chance of getting another Assault Weapons Ban passed as Allahpundit has of setting up a lemonade stand in Hell. Their intention is and has been right from the start, “Universal Firearms Registration”.

Why? Because “Universal Firearms Registration” allows the Federal and State Governments to confiscate your firearm, and then make it look as if they have left them in your possession, thus thereby not violating the 2nd Amendment.

SWalker on March 24, 2013 at 11:18 AM

No!

Enough, you want to stop “gun” crime, first you prosecute the criminals. Until then FOAD.

traye on March 24, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Democrats are great at capitalizing on a moment of national hysteria and using it to restrict liberty. The Sandy Hook incident, a true and awful tragedy, furnished Leftists with what they saw as an opportunity to do what they have always wanted to do: ban most forms of gun ownership. Luckily this time they overplayed their hand and the hysteria has subsided quicker than they could get their anti-Liberty laws passed.

But if you keep voting Democrat, eventually the Democrats will succeed in defeating our rights. Don’t do it.

Rogervzv on March 24, 2013 at 11:24 AM

The other category is far more troubling. Those who have been “adjudicated mentally ill” sounds great in a TV sound bite,

We are having this discussion because of the actions of mentally ill people who never fell under the purview of a court. They were legally able to purchase firearms.

To date, the politicians have avoided any discussion of this issue.

They don’t want to violate anyone’s rights.

What we need is a national “Laura’s Law”. We opened up all the asylums. Now we warehouse the mentally ill in county jails and state prisons AFTER they’ve committed crimes.

GarandFan on March 24, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Can anyone tell me why he’s NOT a democrat?

We know he’s a socialist, authoritarian, progressive, pathologically incapable of leaving people the HELL alone….

so … why?

lm10001 on March 24, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Oh am I sure he will be by the time he tries a presidential run….

OK stop laughing – the guy really is that arrogant and tone deaf.

redguy on March 24, 2013 at 11:32 AM

I’ll support universal background checks if they also apply to those seeking public office, and “journalists” claiming their first amendment rights. Constitutional rights should not be conditional.

merlich on March 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Democrats are great at capitalizing on a moment of national hysteria and using it to restrict liberty.

Rogervzv on March 24, 2013 at 11:24 AM

They are definitely not alone but they are definitely quicker and more adept at it.

CW on March 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM

I love you show Jazz, but man that is the truth, you really just do not know. All the clamor for an assault weapons ban was always nothing more than a distraction. It was a boogie man to be chased down a blind ally, to lead conservatives off on a wild goose chase.

The Democrats knew they had about as much of a chance of getting another Assault Weapons Ban passed as Allahpundit has of setting up a lemonade stand in Hell. Their intention is and has been right from the start, “Universal Firearms Registration”.

Why? Because “Universal Firearms Registration” allows the Federal and State Governments to confiscate your firearm, and then make it look as if they have left them in your possession, thus thereby not violating the 2nd Amendment.

SWalker on March 24, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Yeah, it’s the same tactic used in ramming ObamaCare through….

ObamaCare fails which leads to single payer…..

As long as the idiots of America keep voting for communists….well you know how that ends.

redguy on March 24, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Please, Please, Please……can we have another mass shooting of innocents!!!

The Progressives breathe under their breath.

If they could just have another Sandy Hook think of the MEDIA JIHAD that would be unleashed on gun owners all because of another nutjob.

I wonder if THIS is the reason why they politicians keep talking about GUNS, GUNS, GUNS all the time?…..because they are biding their time hoping for the next massacre that they can jump on and declare…..”we must stop the gun violence”!!!!

Wouldn’t it be nice if we just had people in politics that just wanted to go do their jobs and not try to screw us all around and lie to us and plot some kind of evil liberty robbing agenda?

God help us.

PappyD61 on March 24, 2013 at 11:35 AM

instead focusing on the more achievable goal of universal background checks.

universal background checks = national gun registry.

A prelude to mandatory “buyback” or outright confiscation.

darwin on March 24, 2013 at 11:36 AM

re-elect no one.

PappyD61 on March 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM

I’ll support universal background checks if they also apply to those seeking public office, and “journalists” claiming their first amendment rights. Constitutional rights should not be conditional.

merlich on March 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Ah NO….

I will never support universal background checks – even if it did cover the 5th column….
Because the 5th column can control the information to their advantage.

redguy on March 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Yes let’s keep the law abiding from having protection. Sounds smart to me.

CW on March 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Yes let’s keep the law abiding from having protection. Sounds smart to me.

CW on March 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM

It’s the law abiding the left fears. That’s why they want them disarmed, for their own protection … not ours.

darwin on March 24, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Yes let’s keep the law abiding from having protection. Sounds smart to me.

CW on March 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM

It’s the law abiding the left fears. That’s why they want them disarmed, for their own protection … not ours.

darwin on March 24, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Yup, the left are scared to death that the average American might actually follow the advice of Thomas Jefferson, and overthrow their new Marxist Utopia.

SWalker on March 24, 2013 at 11:42 AM

NYC Mayor Oath of Office:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York and the Charter of the City of New York and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of the mayor of the City of New York to the best of my ability.”

If government itself under oath to do so refuses to support and defend the Constitution, all of it, everywhere in the US in equal measure, do we not then have illegitimate government and lawlessness?

Tripwhipper on March 24, 2013 at 11:44 AM

universal background checks = national gun registry.

A prelude to mandatory “buyback” or outright confiscation.

darwin on March 24, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Once this national gun registry takes effect how long would it take for health insurance and home owners insurance providers to demand access, or the government giving them access to that information for the sole reason of adding on high risk premiums to those firearms owners.

fourdeucer on March 24, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Another rich one-percenter liberal. He might have done better promoting homo sex.

~spits~

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 11:53 AM

What do they have planned for “after”, why do the fascist turds want so badly to disarm the public.

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 11:54 AM

I still think he’s got the face of the Grinch.

Didn’t he run as a republican at one time? We never hear the end of Christine O’Donnell or Sharon angle, by we never hear that he ran as a republican (assuming he did which I think so).

earlgrey133 on March 24, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Someone demand Bloomberg present one example where a background check on a known criminal prevented them from getting a gun.

He won’t be able to produce one, because CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY LAWS! Meaning, they thumb their noses at background checks!

But that fact has never really sunk into Bloomberg’s cast iron skull!

pilamaye on March 24, 2013 at 12:00 PM

What do they have planned for “after”, why do the fascist turds want so badly to disarm the public.

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 11:54 AM

To make us safer, you silly ninny. Why aren’t you accepting the propaganda? What are you — one of those ‘free thinkers’ we keep finding on places like Hot Air?

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Those who have been “adjudicated mentally ill”

Seems to me that we just automatically eliminated 47% (that number keeps coming up) plus a few more to get to 51% of the voting population. Undoubtedly there is a lot of overlap with the first group.

teejk on March 24, 2013 at 12:00 PM

History will be on Bloomberg’s side.

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:01 PM

I still think he’s got the face of the Grinch.

Didn’t he run as a republican at one time? We never hear the end of Christine O’Donnell or Sharon angle, by we never hear that he ran as a republican (assuming he did which I think so).

earlgrey133 on March 24, 2013 at 11:55 AM

…he did!…*spit*

KOOLAID2 on March 24, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Bloom berg needs to be disarmed. Take away his NYCPD protection, and he’ll cry like all butthurt liberals do when they lose lose their speciality.

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 12:03 PM

If I live in one of the “wavering” senator’s states, I am not worried what they will do now they are up for election. I am worried what they will do if they are reelected.

The Democrats political strategy is to lay-low until after the election. If they retain a majority in the senate after the midterms, you will see a concerted push to revisit these measures.

Notwithstanding concerns on Second Amendment issues, these Democrat Senators have voted in lock-step with Mr. Obama on economic issues. They are avid supporters of Obamacare and the outrageous budget the Senate just passed (yes, they let a few vote no to avoid appearances). Collectively, their votes are responsible for the disastrous straights we find our country in.

The bottom line is- can these senators be trusted based not only on what they’ve done, but the types of conversations in which they are currently engaged on the Second Amendment. The answer to that is NO
.

Marcus Traianus on March 24, 2013 at 12:03 PM

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:01 PM

…*spit*…

KOOLAID2 on March 24, 2013 at 12:04 PM

You know, if Bloomberg ever so much as cracked a smile, he could send people stampeding out of the room screaming!

pilamaye on March 24, 2013 at 12:04 PM

To make us safer, you silly ninny. Why aren’t you accepting the propaganda? What are you — one of those ‘free thinkers’ we keep finding on places like Hot Air?

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 12:00 PM

What was I thinking, thank you for making me get my mind right, comrade.

Arbeit Macht Frei!

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 12:04 PM

I wonder how hard big pharma is working behind the scenes to keep any mention of the psychoactive drugs these nuts were proscribed from reaching the subjects. Sure wouldn’t want the authors of the wonderfulness that is Obamacare to have to answer to the potential effects their products may have had on the recent mass shootings, would we?

djtnt on March 24, 2013 at 12:06 PM

History will be on Bloomberg’s side.

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:01 PM

History as in “Whatever happened to Mussolini”?

You might actually be correct for once.

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 12:06 PM

History will be on Bloomberg’s side.

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Which history would that be, you foul liberal ghoul? The next massacre of innocents in a gun-free zone? Or how about in an abortion mill, instead?

Or, where a legal gun owner stops a crime? Or, where an armed woman kills her intended rapist. Or, where an armed woman kills the man she divorced from killer her and her baby.

Take your pick, liberal vermin. If you dare.

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 12:06 PM

we’re an outlier regarding gun rights among developed nations

more people die in a week to guns in our country than people die in a year in others

the 2nd amendment is outdated and antiquated…in a few generations, I believe it will be amended and guns will be banned period

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 12:08 PM

first, I’m not a liberal

second, abortion is off-topic

for every one case where a legal gun owner defends themselves with a gun, hundreds of innocents are killed with a gun…that’s not a good tradeoff in my book

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:11 PM

for every one case where a legal gun owner defends themselves with a gun, hundreds of innocents are killed with a gun…that’s not a good tradeoff in my book

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Right. so ban them and cars, cause thousands die from them, and knives, ditto, and blunt objects, the biggest “murder” weapon of choice. Lets just ban them all…

sandee on March 24, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Can anyone tell me why he’s NOT a democrat?

We know he’s a socialist, authoritarian, progressive, pathologically incapable of leaving people the HELL alone….

so … why?

lm10001 on March 24, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Years ago, on Louis Rukeyser’s show, he did call himself a Democrat. The only reason he ran as a Republican was that the marxist Mark Green ran as a Democrat. It’s that far gone.

rbj on March 24, 2013 at 12:13 PM

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Stuff that whole argument, you putrid infanticide-loving liberal. Ted Kennedy killed more people than have my guns. Maybe he killed more people than you–except for that pro-infanticide meme you have going on.

I woke in a bad mood. Care to have it? I hate l9iberals and I’m itchign to vent. Let’s play, scum.

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Right. so ban them and cars, cause thousands die from them, and knives, ditto, and blunt objects, the biggest “murder” weapon of choice. Lets just ban them all…

sandee on March 24, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Are you truly that dimwitted?

Cars are necessary for travel. Knives are necessary for cooking. Guns are necessary for…um…killing.

Get it?

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Please take your meds immediately dood.

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Are you truly that dimwitted?

Cars are necessary for travel. Knives are necessary for cooking. Guns are necessary for…um…killing.

Get it?

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Dim witted?Have you read any of your posts? … I rest my case…

sandee on March 24, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Why doesn’t this jerk just buy a few left wing, liberal states then he can anoint himself king and ban everything under the sun? This guy is disgusting.

rplat on March 24, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 12:06 PM

we’re an outlier regarding gun rights among developed nations

more people die in a week to guns in our country than people die in a year in others

the 2nd amendment is outdated and antiquated…in a few generations, I believe it will be amended and guns will be banned period

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:09 PM

You are an idiot I do suppose, dancing around your mothers basement in your pantyhose. Smoking crack and masturbating to pictures of Barney Franks, daydreaming of your Marxist Utopia while posting to the internet from your Obama Phone.

SWalker on March 24, 2013 at 12:18 PM

we’re an outlier regarding gun rights among developed nations

more people die in a week to guns in our country than people die in a year in others

the 2nd amendment is outdated and antiquated…in a few generations, I believe it will be amended and guns will be banned period

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:09 PM

The U.S. is an outlier in all sorts of ways that differentiate us from other developed nations, ways that created this nation in the first place, ways that will keep people like you and Bloomers from fully implementing your schemes.

Here’s a short assignment for you: Take your gun-death number and subtract all those who are murdered in cities and states where guns are heavily restricted, then compare to those other developed nations we are supposed to emulate.

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 12:18 PM

first, I’m not a liberal

second, abortion is off-topic

for every one case where a legal gun owner defends themselves with a gun, hundreds of innocents are killed with a gun…that’s not a good tradeoff in my book

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:11 PM

…you’re either mentally retarded or highly uninformed….which one?

KOOLAID2 on March 24, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Here’s a short assignment for you: Take your gun-death number and subtract all those who are murdered in cities and states where guns are heavily restricted, then compare to those other developed nations we are supposed to emulate.

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 12:18 PM

why should I subtract murders from cities? Guess where those guns come from? (hint: neighboring gun accessible states)

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Guns are necessary for…um…killing.

Get it?

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Guns are also for protecting you from getting killed.

Liberal Idiot.

Barred on March 24, 2013 at 12:21 PM

This guy loves to tell you how much he respects our rights while he works hard to take them away.

Speakup on March 24, 2013 at 12:21 PM

first, I’m not a liberal

second, abortion is off-topic

for every one case where a legal gun owner defends themselves with a gun, hundreds of innocents are killed with a gun…that’s not a good tradeoff in my book

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Yes, you’re a liberal. You claim you’re not, but everyone here knows better. We also know you’re a liar. Typical liberal.

Abortion is relevant in all gun-grabbing topics. If you weren’t s liberal, you would grasp the pointed connection.

And here is your ultimate lie: “for every one case where a legal gun owner defends themselves with a gun, hundreds of innocents are killed with a gun…that’s not a good tradeoff in my book”

Like a typical common liberal, you ignored the fact those murders were done WITH ILLEGAL GUNS IN

THE

HANDS

OF

CRIMINALS.

Can I write that any slower for you, liberal?

I have to check back on the archives of the day of Sandy Hook, but I think YOU were one those trolls here that day bouncing with glee over 20 dead children about how you and your kind were finally going to get our guns.

You’re a ghoul. And a liberal.

Nothing more to be said about you, really.

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 12:21 PM

for every one case where a legal gun owner defends themselves with a gun, hundreds of innocents are killed with a gun…that’s not a good tradeoff in my book

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Props for being willing to step down from the “If we can save just one life” mantra you and yours have been spewing.

It would be ironic if you were the egg that was broken to make the “America is safer now with guns” omelet, yes?

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 12:22 PM

…you’re either mentally retarded or highly uninformed….which one?

KOOLAID2 on March 24, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Don’t sell him short…nonpartisan is both.

HumpBot Salvation on March 24, 2013 at 12:22 PM

“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.

From over 72,000 rejected purchase applications, all of which suggest a falsification of Form 4473, a federal felony, less than 50 prosecutions resulted. While some rejections don’t justify prosecution, most are criminals. According to the DOJ’ stats, criminal rejectees are 28% more likely to commit a crime within the next 5 years.

Prosecuting and jailing these criminals would demonstrably reduce crime by these repeat offenders. How many crimes would be prevented and live saved while these repeat offenders were serving time in a federal penitentiary? Does Eric Holder not wonder why these criminals are trying to buy guns? Does he think they all just want to go duck hunting?

Could it have something to do with the fact that enforcing a gun control law that does not further restrict the rights of the law-abiding but would effectively reduce crime undercuts the entire gun control agenda? Could it have something to do with the fact that minorities are heavily overrepresented in this population of criminals and Eric Holder is more interested in “white collar” crime?

novaculus on March 24, 2013 at 12:23 PM

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:11 PM

…you’re either mentally retarded or highly uninformed….which one?

KOOLAID2 on March 24, 2013 at 12:19 PM

It isn’t a case of one or the other, but clear a case of both.

SWalker on March 24, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Please take your meds immediately dood.

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Gee…send me to a burn unit after that incising wit. /

(sarc tag added for extra clarity so the liberal troll gets it)

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 12:24 PM

why should I subtract murders from cities? Guess where those guns come from? (hint: neighboring gun accessible states)

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Because those states and cities have banned non-violent citizens from being able to protect themselves from the scumbags killing everyone in sight?

Hint: Neighboring gun-accessible states don’t suffer from the same gun crime rates.

Why, it’s almost as if the strangulating liberal policies of restricting citizen’s foundational rights has something to do with it.

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 12:26 PM

(sarc tag added for extra clarity so the liberal troll gets it)

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 12:24 PM

He still won’t get it, probably doing a victory dance in his moms basement right now frantically hitting his crack pipe in ecstasy at having you admit that he burned you.

SWalker on March 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 12:26 PM

its actually because gangs and criminal elements are more prevalent in the cities

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM

This guy loves to tell you how much he respects our rights while he works hard to take them away.

Speakup on March 24, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Bingo. Just imagine if some of these “leaders” spent all the energy and dollars they can muster into education or job training instead of butting into people’s lives and dictating what they should or shouldn’t do. They already know what they should and shouldn’t do. This isn’t leadership, it’s ignoring the real problems we face.

scalleywag on March 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM

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.

The “slippery slope” argument is not a fallacy. Standard debate method teaches that “slippery slope” arguments can be fallacious in nature, but they can also be powerful arguments with prima facie evidence if you are already on the slope and can identify what led to what else as an indicator of what will likely lead to what else.

I believe the distinction between the two was finally made to stop giving cover to people who make fun of slippery slope arguments, but have benefited from the slippery slope on too many occasions for their ire to be anything but masked treachery.

Democrats have taken us so far down so many slippery slopes over the years that we usually know what they’re thinking before they can find two brain cells to rub together to form a coherent thought, at which point they are shocked to find that we know their gameplan, because it is not their way to learn from history, but it is ours. Maybe lefties can’t comprehend slippery slope arguments because they can’t think more than one move ahead, and similarly can’t look back far enough to see the shape of the slope they’ve been sliding down?

mintycrys on March 24, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Guns are necessary for…um…killing.

Get it?

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Your comments like that are the reason I can’t take my 10 year old to the indoor range and introduce him to the joys of shooting. He would feel compelled to talk about it in school and probably be harassed by students and teachers with your moronic mind set. He is in for a real treat when school is out though and there will be one more young boy that appreciates the shooting sports.

fourdeucer on March 24, 2013 at 12:30 PM

This isn’t leadership, it’s ignoring the real problems we face.

scalleywag on March 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM

And it’s LAZINESS. They don’t want to tackle the real issues, it’s easier just to ban everything they don’t approve of.

scalleywag on March 24, 2013 at 12:30 PM

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:20 PM

You’re a total POS, you putrid baby-killing liberal.

If I lived where my oldest granddaughter does, she’d be well-practiced with my .45 by now. She is 13, but if I lived there she would be carrying my father’s old .22 Baretta pistol when her new boyfriend takes her out. That pistol can fire .22 LR bullets, by the way. I cut the lead to dum-dums.

FU, liberal.

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 12:32 PM

American households responding to pollsters positively about gun ownership is at an all time low, while sales to first time owners are at an all time high. Hmmmm.

pat on March 24, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 12:26 PM

its actually because gangs and criminal elements are more prevalent in the cities

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM

No, it’s because gangs and criminal elements are more prevalent where there are high concentrations of disarmed soft target victims. The FBI has kept track of gun related crime for decades, and their statistics 100 percent prove that metropolitan area’s with unrestricted Conceal and Carry laws have profoundly lower gun and violent crime rates.

SWalker on March 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM

He still won’t get it, probably doing a victory dance in his moms basement right now frantically hitting his crack pipe in ecstasy at having you admit that he burned you.

SWalker on March 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Let him have at it. Liberals need all they can get.

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 12:34 PM

its actually because gangs and criminal elements are more prevalent in the cities

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Ah. Apparently you missed the thread here from a month or two ago about the crime study done between Chicago and Houston, two cities with almost identical demographics but on opposite ends of the gun-banning spectrum. Too bad, the results were enlightening.

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 12:36 PM

its actually because gangs and criminal elements are more prevalent in the cities

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Gangs also exist in rural areas, too, you nitwit. Just because they’re not Crips or Bloods doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

You really need to get out more in the real world. Or is that too scary for you?

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 12:37 PM

SWalker on March 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM

no, actually its because cities have more poor ppl, illegals, and minorities.

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:37 PM

SWalker on March 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM

no, actually its because cities have more poor ppl, illegals, and minorities.

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Wrong answer, thanks for playing, sorry no parting gift for you.

SWalker on March 24, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Can anyone tell me why he’s NOT a democrat

To be honest he’s not a Dem becuase even the Dems pay lip service to democratic values. Bloomie believes in the Owner/CEO brand of govt where the all knowledgeable, all powerful boss tells the riff raff exactly what’s in their best interests.It’s not liberalism, progressivism. fascism, communism it’s despotism that went out of style with Louis XIV.

xkaydet65 on March 24, 2013 at 12:40 PM

What does he do other than support banning stuff?

JellyToast on March 24, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Cars are necessary for travel. Knives are necessary for cooking. Guns are necessary for…um…killing.

Get it?

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Nope, public transportation or your own two legs, we need to stop the car-related slaughter, yes? Then of course there is the woman who intentionally ran down her cheating husband; we need to save one life, it could have been his.

Knife crime in Great Britain is at “epidemic” proportions, apparently knives can be used for killing as well as cooking.

Now guns, useful only for killing. Why have the demorats, even Feinstein, exempted some guns from their proposed ban? Explain please.

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 12:40 PM

I can’t take my 10 year old
fourdeucer on March 24, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Should have said my 10 year old grandson, geez I am old.

fourdeucer on March 24, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Nope, public transportation or your own two legs, we need to stop the car-related slaughter, yes? Then of course there is the woman who intentionally ran down her cheating husband; we need to save one life, it could have been his.

Knife crime in Great Britain is at “epidemic” proportions, apparently knives can be used for killing as well as cooking.

Now guns, useful only for killing. Why have the demorats, even Feinstein, exempted some guns from their proposed ban? Explain please.

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 12:40 PM

this will be my last post for the day, so pay attention:

1. Banning cars would shut down society and greatly destroy productivity. Our public transportation infrastructure simply isn’t strong enough to replace cars (at least outside of NYC).

2. Yes knives can be used to kill. But guess what, Cho killed over 30 ppl in Virginia Tech. No knifeman can kill 30 ppl before being stopped. So banning guns wont stop mentally insane from hurting others but it will decrease deaths.

3. They know its not politically feasible to ban all guns…yet. I believe secretly that most antigun folks would like to abolish 2nd amendment entirely, but they won’t say that publicly, not until attitudes shift (and we’ve seen how quickly attitudes shift with the gay marriage issue)

have a good day sir

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:46 PM

no, actually its because cities have more poor ppl, illegals, and minorities.

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:37 PM

You know nothing except what you read at HuffPo, do you?

I lived in a rural area a long time, where people had ‘jack a deer at night to feed their families. There is nothing at all you can tell me about ‘the poor’.

As further matter of fact, you liberal ignorant slime, there is nothing any of you liberals can tell me at all.

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Textbook sociopath.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Bruce MacMahon on March 24, 2013 at 12:46 PM

for every one case where a legal gun owner defends themselves with a gun, hundreds of innocents are killed with a gun

Untrue. In this case, the willful falsehood of a liar.

novaculus on March 24, 2013 at 12:49 PM

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:37 PM

And here’s another thing, you liberal sack of shit…

I was a security officer in that community. When I came across a man jacking a deer off-season, it was “I wasn’t here and it didn’t happen.”

You liberals can’t tell me a thing.

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 12:51 PM

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013

You have earned your way into the top 5 of dumbest posters list. My goodness you’re an idiot who wouldn’t know an original thought if hit you in the face. Such simplistic talking points.

CW on March 24, 2013 at 12:52 PM

I know you’re reading this.

Why do statists always resort to removing the rights of everyone in an effort to stop the few, efforts which even they know won’t work? Why do the gun-banners propose an exemption list of guns which WON’T be banned if guns themselves are the problem?

Confusing, I know.

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 12:52 PM

the Constitution is outdated and antiquated…in a few generations, I hope it will be banned period

partisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Edited for accuracy.

New York has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US already. Didn’t help poor John Lennon.

F-

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2013 at 12:57 PM

first, I’m not a liberal

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:11 PM

If you think anyone here is buying that, I have some oceanfront property in Vermont I will let you have real cheap.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Bishop on March 24, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Liberals never grew up. There was a recent ‘study’ that concluded little kids don’t share toys. Like any parent needed a study to ‘confirm’ that. Pffft!

Liberals are infantile. Really, Bishop–they never grew up. They never got past the stage where if they don’t like something, you can’t have it, either.

Emotionally, liberals never got past Freud’s anal stage.

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Guns are necessary for…um…killing.

Get it?

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Are you truly that dimwitted?

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2013 at 1:00 PM

why should I subtract murders from cities? Guess where those guns come from? (hint: neighboring gun accessible states)

partisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Ah, the old “Chicago Argument” again.

Only problem is, plenty of Chicago gang members have stated, for the record, that they regularly steal guns from parked freight cars at the rail yard in Chicago.

F-

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2013 at 1:03 PM

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,”

Yessir, Joe is “in touch with real American gun owners”. About as much as Shotgun Joe is.

Guns are necessary for…um…killing.

Get it?

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:16 PM

No. They. Are. Not.

ghostwalker1 on March 24, 2013 at 1:04 PM

gangs and criminal elements are more prevalent in the cities

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM

And why is that? Because all of those cities have been controlled for decades by Democrats.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Guns are necessary for…um…killing.

Get it?

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:16 PM

That’s true. Killing criminals comes first to mind.

Then you would fight to all your muster to stop a convicted criminal from being executed, his deserving crimes never entering into your liberal thinking.

You are such a horrid scum, a ghoul.

How do you live with yourself?

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 1:05 PM

its because cities have more poor ppl, illegals, and minorities.

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:37 PM

And all of them belong to your Party.

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2013 at 1:07 PM

I’ve been pwned so I am going back under the bridge.

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Del Dolemonte on March 24, 2013 at 1:08 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343780/rove-i-could-see-gops-2016-candidate-supporting-same-sex-marriage-andrew-johnson

Speaking of Nannies…….here’s the latest from the Nanny of the gop Karl Rove.

..and now I see that Mitt Romney thinks he may have a future in the gop? As what exactly? Running against another Conservative field in the primaries?

GO AWAY 2012 gop losers!!!

PappyD61 on March 24, 2013 at 1:09 PM

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013 at 12:16 PM

I want all women to have right to carry a firearm. My oldest granddaughter comes first to mind.

Why would you feel better about yourself if my Precious One was raped and disallowed, as YOU advocate, to protect herself?

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Seems the foul liberal bailed. They usually do when facts get in their way.

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 1:12 PM

until there are clear definitions on things such as who is keeping track of lists of gun owners

If you think those lists will only stay in the hands of those who are “officially” in charge of them, well, you haven’t been paying attention. Once those lists exist, we’ve lost, regardless of how innocuous they may “officially” look.

clearbluesky on March 24, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Isn’t NY full of Democrats?

Remember the movie Escape From New York?

I say wall the darn place off and let Mayor Bloomberg do any nonsense he and his supporters want.

IlikedAUH2O on March 24, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Isn’t NY full of Democrats?

Remember the movie Escape From New York?

I say wall the darn place off and let Mayor Bloomberg do any nonsense he and his supporters want.

IlikedAUH2O on March 24, 2013 at 1:16 PM

A ‘broken arrow’ kind of thing would be preferable.

Liam on March 24, 2013 at 1:19 PM

nonpartisan on March 24, 2013

Troll.

CW on March 24, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4