Posts Tagged ‘Bloomberg’

Bloomberg’s Anti-NRA failure

Posted by Troy on 19th April 2014 in Current Events, Political

Bloomberg has decided to take the fight to the NRA and try to create a new grassroots organization to fight for more gun control.  To this end, he has devoted fifty million dollars.  Here is why he is wasting fifty million dollars:  What he doesn’t realize is that people that believe you have a right to own guns REALLY believe you have a right to own guns.  They are motivated and they are dedicated to the idea.  This is why gay marriage will eventually win.  The group that wants gay marriage REALLY wants gay marriage.  The group that doesn’t want gay marriage are much less dedicated.  This isn’t to say there isn’t a group that is hard core about it and will be up in arms.  Just like it isn’t to say that there is not a group of people that are absolutely dedicated to banning all guns.  For most anti-gunners, this is a secondary issue.  It’s one they are not that interest in because gun ownership generally has little impact on their lives.  The gun rights advocates are dedicated about it because these laws actively affect them.  As such, they will always be dedicated to stopping gun control measures, and those who want gun control measures will do so as long as nothing more interesting is going on in their lives.  I would advise Bloomberg to prepare himself for failure.

Long Live the Constitution!

Gun Control and Mayor Blooming Idiot

Posted by Troy on 15th April 2013 in Current Events, Political

I intend a certain amount of disrespect when I call him Mayor Blooming Idiot, but that’s just because I think he’s a fascist moron.  He’s living proof that intelligence and being a billionaire don’t have to go together.  Now he questions why a father would sell a gun to his son rather than just give it to him.  Of course, to a billionaire, maybe a few hundred dollars is but a tawdry sum not worth mentioning.  I can think of a few reasons, but I don’t think it really matters.  Here is the real issue.

Can anyone tell me how many of the guns used in mass killings were purchased illegally?  Has ANYONE thought to ask?  Does ANYONE care?  If you found out that they all came through a registered dealer and were obtained legally, would it even matter to you?  Of course, if you are against guns, that would merely prove your point that all guns need to be illegal, right?  And that’s what this is all about.  It’s about chipping away at the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens because they can’t possibly advance their agenda with the truth.

Do you care that none of the laws being proposed would have stopped any of the mass killing in the recent past?  And yet, we are treated to Obama leading around Sandy Hook survivors like trained ponies in front of the camera, begging us to advance his agenda, and for what?!  Are they just ignorant of the law?  Are the Democrats merely exploiting these people in a moment of pain the way the are trying to exploit all of us by putting these mourners on stage for us to gawk at like some side show freaks?

They claim that 90% of us are for expanded background checks.  First of all, I question how many of us care to be informed.  Most mass shooters do not have anything in their records that would have prevented them from purchasing guns to start with.  Actually, what would be a better solution is to force everyone to go through a thorough medical and mental screening every single year to address these types of issues and those who would be prone to commit other crimes.  So why don’t we do that?  Because it’s an invasive breach of our rights?   Because sacrificing the rights of everyone isn’t wroth the lives we’d save?

We do agree in background checks.  I would say that most people would even agree to adding background checks to gun shows.  However, what they are talking about doing is adding checks to every single gun sale even among friends and other private individuals.  Of course, the only way to accomplish or enforce this is to make a national registry.  This is, of course, what they say they do not want to do.  Over time, they will either lose interest in these meaningless background checks or they will push for a national registry.  I’m betting that the Democrats will do the second one.

Let’s accept something, and this is more poignant in the wake of the Boston Marathon attack.  In a free society, there are going to be cases where people break the law and bad things happen.  When this happens, you can do one of two things.  You can either accept that this is part of the human condition and punish the guilt, or you can take away the rights from everyone.  Bear in mind, doing the first one won’t make you any safer as criminals will continue to break the laws.

Which will you choose?

Long Live the Constitution!

Bloomberg is a Fascist

Posted by Troy on 4th June 2012 in Current Events, Political

In a world where we throw around terms like extremist and socialist and Nazi, we have lost sight of what a Fascist looks like.  No, I’m not talking about the common definition which basically equates brutal governments to Fascism.  A lot of people say that Fascism is when the corporations run the government.  This too is wrong.  No, what makes for Fascism is when the government decides what the market should decide.  The government becomes the arbiter for all decisions from what should be reported to the price of a gallon of milk or the salary of those milking the cow.

Bloomberg is a Fascist.  Pure and simple.  First, he mandated how much salt you could consume.  Now he wants to control how much sugar you drink in the form of sodas.  He wants to pass a law that will prevent places from selling soft drinks in any size greater than 16 ounces.  The reason for this is that he is sick of obesity.  Obesity increases the amount of health risks the person faces and adds cost to our medical system.  Of course, a better solution might be to allow insurers to cancel your insurance once you exceed a certain BMI, but we can’t have insurers dropping problem clients, can we?  We can’t discriminate on conditions (pre-existing or otherwise).  Such a simple clause, “We agree to cover you as long as you maintain your premiums and do not exceed a BMI of 30.”  Of course, that would be terrible, so instead we are going to make sure someone with a BMI of 21 who is really thirsty can’t buy a 32 ounce drink with their own money.  We’ll also make sure lovers can’t buy one drink and split it between the two of them to save costs.  The fact of the matter is that obesity is almost always self-inflicted.  And yet, we insist on failing to account for personal responsibility.  Perhaps people would watch their weight more if they knew gaining five more pounds would nullify their medical benefits (and yeah, I’d include Medicare and Medicaid).  If someone refuses to do the bare minimum in taking care of themselves, why should taxpayers take care of them?

Bloomberg uses his network to dole out his ideology.  He attempts to impose his will on others.  He seeks to affect the legislation of other states and cities.  He believes that the people are too stupid to see what is good for them.   To Hell with sodas, what if he tried to do the same thing with steak?  The current serving size is three ounces for meat.  Could you imagine ordering a ribeye and they bring out a three ounce hunk of meat?  The argument he uses against sodas could equally be applied to steak or coffee or tea or ice cream or anything else.  What’s to prevent him from dictating that all meals must consist of at least 50% vegetables?  The same logic applies.

I’ve asked this before, and I’ll ask it again..why would anyone want to live in New York City right now?

Long Live the Constitution!