Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

It seems that the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms invited Nanny Bloomberg to speak at their Gun Rights Policy Conference, but the New York mayor can’t summon the intestinal fortitude to face folsk that might disagree with him;

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been challenging President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to speak out about gun control, but Bloomberg declined a chance to do it himself at the annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) in September, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms noted.

According to CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, Bloomberg was invited to the 27th annual event, scheduled Sept. 28-30 in Orlando, Fla., but he turned it down.

“What does it say about someone who demands that others shill for his agenda, but when given the chance to take his fight to the gun rights community, he retreats,” Gottlieb wondered. “Mayor Bloomberg is always quick with his tongue in front of a friendly media audience, or in the confines of a broadcast studio, but when he has an opportunity to meet with people who have differing viewpoints about a fundamental civil right, he takes a powder.”

[…]

“It seems odd for a guy like Michael Bloomberg, who rushes to every television news camera and microphone, to avoid what could be a major media event,” Gottlieb mused. “He’s been complaining about the ‘deafening silence’ from Romney and Obama, but when he is offered the chance to confront gun owners, whose rights he wants to see trampled, he voluntarily puts on a muzzle.

“Mayor Bloomberg has spent the past several months,” he said, “establishing himself as a Nanny State monarch, telling people give up their guns, to drink less soda, eat fewer fries and forego giving baby formula to newborns. He’s good at criticizing people he calls gun ‘nuts,’ but lately he seems a few cashews short of a full can, himself.

Of course, Florida is a “shall issue” state and being there might give Bloomberg hives.

I guess the gun grabbers are realizing that they can’t get our guns so they’re trying different approaches to disarming Americans – like the large capacity magazine ban and now, in a link sent to us by Old Trooper, they’re coming for our ammunition;

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that President Obama will “evaluate” a new bill that would ban online ammunition sales in the wake of the shooting massacre in Aurora, Colo. That left 12 dead and dozens more injured.

At first Mr. Earnest said he didn’t know if Mr. Obama was aware of a bill sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Democrat from New Jersey, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat from New York. He later amended this remarks to say the White House would evaluate the measure.

Yeah, banning online sales of ammo will sure help the economy, won’t it? And oh, yeah thousands of people bought ammunition on line the same day that James Holmes bought his and those thousands of purchasers didn’t shoot anyone – but they’re the ones who are being punished.

So I guess we all need to stock up.

It was a big weekend for the gun grabbers in the news. First Nanny Bloomberg wrote an opinion piece in his own Bloomberg news service entitled “How to Break NRA’s Grip on Politics” in which he thinks that the NRA is a threat to the gun control agenda;

The NRA is a $200 million-plus-a-year lobbying juggernaut, with much of its funding coming from gun manufacturers and merchandising. More than anything, the NRA is a marketing organization, and its flagship product is fear. Gun sales jumped after Obama was elected president, based on the absurd — and now demonstrably false — fear that he would seek to ban guns.

Yeah, politicians are not scared of the NRA, they’re scared of voters who will vote them out if they adopt a gun-grabbing tilt. The NRA is nothing without voters. Of course, Bloomberg has nothing to fear from the NRA since there are very few gun owners in his city. But, then Nanny Bloomberg also took up the fight against women feeding their babies from a bottle this weekend, too.

In round two, everyone seems worried that USSC Justice Antonin Scalia came out for gun control by claiming that the issue of large capacity magazines will have to be decided in the court. He also said that whether Americans can own rocket launchers will have to be decided by the court. He didn’t say there was no room for gun legislation because that would give the appearance that he’s already made up his mind about the issue, and what would be judicious about that? But the chattering nabobs on both sides are using Scalia’s very few words on the issue in this interview as an indication that more gun legislation could make it through the courts. But that’s not what Scalia said. Watch the whole interview like I did instead of reading the few bullet lines in the press.

Meanwhile Democrat Senators are trying to stick an amendment into the cybersecurity bill that will regulate guns, according to The Hill;

The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

So, I immediately ordered two more large capacity magazines, just to piss them off. Unless I’m swarmed by zombies, I’ll probably never use them, except to piss off the gun grabbers.

Fox News reports that President Obama has called for “strengthening” gun laws, but you tell me what he really means when he says;

“I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities.”

He called for stepped-up background checks for people who want to purchase guns and said he would also seek a national consensus on combating violence.

We have the right to bear arms, but only the arms that the government will allow us to have? And I’m not sure how they can say “stepped up background checks” and have anything meaningful in mind. No amount of “stepped up” checks would have prevented James Holmes from buying the guns he bought. The only thing that would’ve prevented his purchases would prevent anyone else from buying the same guns since Holmes had no black marks on his background before his night at the theater.

So Harry Reid shied away from a discussion in the Senate this year on gun control because he knows what would happen to the Democrats in the Senate in their respective States.

But Jay Carney told the press how to interpret Obama’s remarks;

“He believes that we can enhance the enforcement of existing laws by making it more difficult for those who should not have weapons under existing laws … to obtain weapons,” Carney said.

He noted that Obama supports the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004, but said he wants to focus on strengthening background checks “given the stalemate in Congress.”

Well, he can do that without Congress, but he’ll blame Congress for not “strengthening” background checks. He has enough laws in effect to enforce an effective control of commercial weapons, but if he does that, there will be no more crises on which he can depend to argue for more laws to restrict the millions of us who own guns and don’t kill other people.

Romney apparently agrees with me that there are enough laws on the books already. For today, anyway.

The president, however, suggested Wednesday that it “shouldn’t be controversial” to make the case that a “mentally unbalanced” person shouldn’t be able to get a gun so easily.

I’m guessing that by “mentally unbalanced” he means anyone who wants to buy what he’d call an assault weapon.