Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, October 22, 2016

Please, Mr. Bloomberg… leave the checkbook open, but step away from the podium.

Your efforts to curb gun violence and improve firearms safety are notable. The National Rifle Association thanks you.

For years, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has been the best membership recruitment tool the NRA could hope for: a walking, talking, Big Gulp-banning embodiment of government overreach. And look what he’s done now… given the NRA yet another gift on the eve of their national convention.

In Bloomberg’s mind, his new national organization, Everytown for Gun Safety, is is a much-needed counter to the NRA: a grassroots effort that will encourage pro-gun-control voters to step up to the polls, press for expanding background checks at the state and national levels, and make sure states keep guns away from the dangerously mentally ill and domestic-violence offenders.

Everytown for Gun Safety seeks to accomplish virtually everything the NRA has opposed in recent years. Its agenda is filled with action that needs to happen to ensure more Americans don’t die by gunfire, whether accidental, suicidal or homicidal. And Bloomberg, a billionaire, is bankrolling it with $50 million.

That’s not the problem. What is worrisome is that Bloomberg plans on chairing the new group. At this point, he seems determined be its most out-front face.

Great. He might as well have just handed the NRA talking points for its Indianapolis convention, which begins April 25.

The sad fact about the gun debate in America is that the voices on the extremes are the loudest, and they drown out those in the middle. Yes, there is a middle ground. Bloomberg just rarely conveys it.

In an interview with The New York Times to announce Everytown, he praised himself for his good deeds: “If there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.”

This declaration was made with a smile, but the joke reveals one of Bloomberg’s qualities, his arrogance, which has a way of putting off even those of us who agree that secondhand cigarette smoke is dangerous, trans fats are unhealthy and large sugary soft drinks are a dietary scourge. And, oh yes, guns need to be better controlled.

But it wasn’t the common-sense messaging that took the lead following the introduction of Everytown for Gun Safety. No, it was Bloomberg.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The National Memo
  • disqus_ivSI3ByGmh

    As a Liberal Dem, I am sad to say whenever Bloomberg opens his mouth, the NRA’s popularity increases.

    • charleo1

      As another liberal Dem, I’m afraid I must agree with you. While I think Michael Bloomberg’s efforts are laudable. And he certainly has as much Right to part with his money, and make his case, as any other citizen/billionaire. However, his other clumsy, even naive efforts to regulate the diet of his fellow New Yorkers, precedes him, and leaves him vulnerable to well worn, and sometimes true impressions about nanny-state Left Wingers. Who believe they know more about what’s best for people, than they know for themselves. In the case of guns, we at least need enough regulation so that law enforcement can trace weapons used in crimes, to apprehend the criminals that carried them out. But the truth about gun control, is it is a loser issue for the Left. People will tell pollsters they favor more restrictions to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally impaired, in the wake a horrendous massacre of innocents. But, they are soft on it in general. As the brave legislators in Colorado found out, after passing some very mild measures. The gun lobby came after them, to make them an example of what happens to Democrats that pass gun regulations. The gun people showed up, the people that said they supported gun control didn’t. Message received.

      • emkkahn

        I wish that Harry Reid felt the same about the Koch Brothers right to spend their money as they wish.

        • charleo1

          What does that mean? Speaker Reid is just as entitled to his opinion of the Kochs, as they are entitled to theirs about Speaker Reid. So far the Koch Roach Brothers, seem to be doing as they please with their money.

          • emkkahn

            If Harry Reid said he hated the Koch’s while out of Washington DC, that might be one thing. When Reid attacks a private citizen of the US (who is lawfully exercising his Constitutional right) ON THE SENATE FLOOR AS SPEAKER, that is an abuse of power. Same thing when Obama uses his power as president to have the IRS harass his political enemies, who again are private American citizens that the president is supposed to be representing. But I agree, George Soros, Ted Turner, Alec Baldwin, etc should be free to use their money as they see fit without being harassed by their by their elected government no matter which party is in power.

          • charleo1

            Oh, boo hoo. I never heard such a bunch of
            cry babies, in all my life. I’m sure the Koch Bros.
            are really tore up about what Harry Reid says.
            What did the loon assed Republicans do to the
            family of Terry Schiavo? You want to talk about
            a private citizen being attacked? Senate Leader
            Bill Frist had the Justice Department send Federal
            Marshalls to Florida to intervene, in this family’s
            painful, and very private affairs. Thankfully, the family’s lawyer convinced Governor Jeb Bush
            to call his mentally stunted brother, to call off
            the Federales. Sorry, I have a really hard time
            picturing billionaires, as downtrodden victims.

          • emkkahn

            So once you have a billion dollars, you should no longer have the same rights as anyone else? Terry Schiavo was a life and death moral situation, not a spending thing. (And I supported the family’s decision to pull the plug and was blown out of proportion by the social conservatives and should never have even been a news story.)
            The Democrats demonizing of successful people is really sick tho. Hate the bankers (who take risks to help up and comers), hate the drug maker (who save lives), hate and envy the rich who worked their way up. Why do you guys want to punish the people who create the wealth? And instead, you worship the mediocre people who just sit around and bitch about being mediocre… Society doesn’t owe these people anything.
            And W? He is far more the adult then our current Commander in Chief. He never tried to divide America into Black/White, Rich/Poor, Male/Female advisories.
            This Administration is easily the most corrupt administration in my lifetime (which goes back to LBJ). Between Harry Reid, Lois Learner, H. Clinton, and Eric Holder the abuse of power under Obama is unprecedented. And yet, for the liberals, the NRA (a private organization that has broken no laws) is the enemy. Sad for America.

          • charleo1

            Are you through bootlicking, and genuflecting to the corporate aristocracy? Never mind embarrassing yourself, you’re embarrassing me! Yes, this Country
            has a long sorted history of depriving billionaires of
            their Constitutional Rights. And as such, they hardly
            have any say about what goes on in their own Gov.
            When they were poor struggling Mothers, trying to just make ends meet, they had all kinds of access.
            But now that they’ve got a billion, or two in their bank accounts, politicians on both sides of the isle
            could not care less what they have to say. There
            ought to be a law drawn up, strictly prohibiting the shameful disenfranchisement of the rich. Which has
            only grown worse, since the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United. And there’s no doubt about the
            current President, being anti-billionaire. He has taxed them, and regulated them, and demonized them, until the personal bank accounts of billionaires like the Koch Brothers have doubled, since the decidedly anti-success, anti-business, class warfare divider, Barack Obama took office.
            Outrageous, isn’t it? That some people would still have a hard on at the bankers. for that little fiasco
            that cost 20 million people their jobs, and another
            10 million their homes. And their Gov. several trillion
            backstopping the mess, to prevent a world wide
            catastrophe. I blame the poor, don’t you? They
            certainly carry an inordinate amount of influence
            with lawmakers. They need to get a fu*king job!
            And stop abridging the Rights of billionaires.

          • emkkahn

            LOL! You are funny, Charleo, I’ll give you that.
            But you really have drank the class-ism Flavor-aid… And if I embarrass you because I don’t hate a person based on their income, then I’m happy to do it.

          • charleo1

            If by. “class-ism,” you mean I acknowledge there are different classes of income, who’s priorities are
            naturally different, I think that’s obviously true. To
            say the concerns of people who’s incomes are lower, or are poor, are treated differently that those with money, is a malpractice of democracy, and
            violates the spirit, and sometimes the letter of the
            law. But it is also undeniable, as a fact of American
            life. It’s not a matter of hate. Hate is an emotional
            response, who’s roots might be found in all manner
            of personal hang ups. When applied as a coverall,
            to every member of a group, simply based on income. That was your straw man, was it not? Then
            it’s much easier to knock down. There are without
            disagreement, wonderful, upright, kind hearted, and compassionate people who also happen to be rich.
            But, they don’t need a watchdog to make sure their
            Govt. and the elected officials who represent it, are
            paying attention to them. Especially, if like the Koch
            Family, may donate several hundred million dollars
            to the campaigns, and Party, of those who are hoping to be elected. Meaning they don’t need you,
            or anyone, in today’s day, and age, worrying about
            their Constitutional Rights being upheld. After all, they’ve got the Supreme Court itself, looking out after them.

          • BenAround

            The point is that Reid excoriates the Koch brothers because they donate to conservative causes while Soros, who ruined a country’s currency to make his billions, gets a pass because he is a socialist. This is not about the rich against the poor. It is about whether a fascist rich person like Soros gets a pass because he supports Obama’s totalitarian agenda vs. whether someone like the Koch Bros., who support free enterprise gets picked as winners and losers. What Reid has said is that the Koch Bros. should be deprived of their free speech because they spend their money on things he doesn’t agree with. He is fine with the Unions (controlled by the mob) and socialists like Soros spending as much as they like promoting an agenda that Dirty Harry agrees with. I am certainly not weeping over the Koch brothers. As you say, they can take care of themselves. What I am concerned about is the increased propensity for this administration to pick winners and losers–from the IRS persecution of conservative applicants to the uneven application of the law to anyone who raises their head to speak out against Obama or who offends his Islamic terrorist friends (i.e.; the Palestinian filmmaker who is in jail and Dinesh D’Souza, who is likely to join him)–both for crimes that liberals routinely get away with.

          • charleo1

            Well, it was going to be about partisanship effecting one’s opinion. And, you’ll get no argument from me on that reality. After all, isn’t one person’s terrorists, the next fellow’s freedom fighters? But, if it’s going to be about, “Obama’s totalitarian agenda,” we can just end this little discussion right now. Not because it’s
            insulting to Obama. But it is insulting to the majority that elected him twice, and supports the agenda he ran on, and is attempting to carry out. It’s also insulting to me, my family, and the very institutions of the Republic, you obviously care so little about, you have allow yourself to be turned against. The Pope went to Palestine, and said they needed a Country. I guess he’ll be the next terrorist lover for the Right to
            rip up, for fun, and profit. Just keep it up.

      • BenAround

        If the left would focus on holding people accountable for their crimes instead of trying to control everyone across the board, they would have more bipartisan support. The hatred of guns by liberals is enough to make gun owners just nervous enough to resist even the most reasonable of measures. It is not the NRA that controls the agenda. They are just the voice of those who see the hatred of guns by the left as a threat to second amendment rights. Bloomberg is just the bellwether for the rest of the sheep. His war on soft drinks shows his true agenda of control. I have said before and I will say again–if the liberals were to give ground on concealed carry in their stupid “gun free zones,” they might find that gun owners would be more amenable to improved coverage on background checks and other reasonable measures. But, as long as they insist on creating threat free shooting galleries for criminals and crazies while trying to make gun ownership more difficult, they will be seen as irrational enemies of the constitution by law-abiding gun owners.

        • charleo1

          Okay, what has the Left to do with holding people accountable for their crimes? And what does that look like, this control? I do think we lock up more
          people now, than any Country in the World. So how
          does accountability translate to liberals being soft on crime, with wanting to plug holes in gun laws wide enough to drive a tank thru, for felons to legally acquire guns? Then, asking law enforcement to face theses well armed felons on a daily basis, get characterized as hating guns, or wanting to purge the Second Amendment? You guys that spend your time on what may as well be another planet, and think someone’s going to be able to understand that insider stuff, that everyone I guess, agrees with, that listens to O’Reilly, or Limbaugh, and reads Red State every morning. You are literally talking code. See, they haven’t made their case to me. Largely because I’m not misstating my Party’s position,
          without a member in attendance. Like is usually the
          case. Then and knocking it down, as obviously some hidden Communist plot. And yes, it makes a big difference when using facts, as opposed to making them up as one goes along. Without anyone there to say hey, that’s not our position. One fact that might be telling, is there was not the entire time the GOP controlled the White House, the Senate, House, and agenda, even one National gun law proposed to expand the concealed carry in a Republican lead gov. In which you say the Left is in blind opposition. The best in that respect the Bush team managed, was allowing what was left of the Brady Bill, the ban on assault weapons to expire. Over the objections of law enforcement. Who are
          I think part of that whole, holding criminals accountable thing. While closing the gun show loophole, and limiting the size of clips, both
          hunters, and target range enthusiasts say they don’t
          use, are the current position of the Democratic Party. In fact, where President Obama could expand concealed carry by his authority, he has done so, in National Parks. I would say, as long as you insist on
          listening to NRA taking points dragged out over and
          over, as part of a political case for the GOP aimed
          at garnering the votes low info listeners, the Left will always be seen as these irrational enemies of of the Constitution. But, law abiding gun owners, and just so we don’t lose sight of the fact, that also includes many who align themselves with the Left, and Democratic Party. Actually supported, and continue to support, closing the gun show loophole, and other common sense gun regulation. We don’t generally agree with allowing guns in gov. buildings, bars, college campuses, and emotionally charged political rallies, and other such events will prove an improvement to public safety. However, some State Legislatures have decided to do so, and we will see how that works out. If it proves successful, I think you will see opposition fade very quickly. Well, everywhere but the Right Wing media that is. There our hate of guns out paces our love of people by wide margins. Only explained by dark conspiracy,

  • bicfj

    Any and all publicity regarding gun control is good.

    The fact is gun deaths are directly proportional to the number of guns that exist. Fewer guns — Fewer deaths.

    Certain types of guns are involved in most gun deaths, handguns and assault weapons, together with high capacity clips for both. These need to be controlled.

    Background checks for ALL gun sales is the best control for guns. Our lawmakers should require background checks for ALL gun sales.

    • whodatbob

      Background checks on all gun sales is a great idea. The details of how to enforce it are the sticking points. If an individual sells a gun to another individual who pays for the background check and how will anyone know the transaction transpired? If a gun is purchased as a gift for another person how do you make the receiving person get a background check.

      Most shootings are done with illegally obtained guns. The bad guys still not get background checks.

      Background check to purchase a gun require a phone call within 10 to 20 min. the seller get a response. Can’t be much of a check.

    • Gun control has nothing to do with guns. It is to disarm and control the populous. When will you liberals realize our 2nd is there to protect America from people like we now have running our country? Tyrants all.

      • Allan Richardson

        You sound like a perfect candidate for background checks.

        • FNP45rocks

          Truth will set you free….Semper Fi

        • Troy Couch

          please Allan tell us how a thief will submit to a background check before they steal a firearm.
          As for insane people, tell us how we protect ourselves if it happens, if you have your way.

      • Independent1

        Why would you wade once again into a discussion you obviously know nothing about. The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with protecting Americans against OUR government; it’s all about ensuring that the militias of that time always had people with weapons prepared to protect America from foreigners!!

        I’m not sure you’re intelligent enough to understand the last part of Madison’s Federalist No. 46 paper; but in the end, he makes fun of idiots like Thomas Jefferson who were paranoid at the time about the Federal Government establishing a standing army. See this:

        The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the
        people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.

        On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged
        in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the
        authors of them.

        Chimerical fears – fantasies of their imaginations!!!

        And here’s the link to a paper from ex Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, that explains what the 2nd Amendment is really about (maintaining militias)!!

        Nothing in what Madison wrote gives You,.Me or any other American not active in a militia the right to carry a weapon!!! Unless you butcher the assessment of what it says as the current right-wing biased SC did:

        Justice Stevens: Supreme Court has Misinterpreted the Second Amendment

        • Steve Daily

          “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
          George Mason
          Co-author of the Second Amendment
          during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

          “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
          Samuel Adams

          “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
          George Washington

          You’re retarded.

          • Dominick Vila

            The militia is the National Guard. Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment was so poorly written that it can be interpreted as including every American, regardless of whether they have a criminal record or are mentally disturbed.

          • cheechio

            The militia is every male over 17 years of age, theres legislation explaining this…

          • Dominick Vila

            You may want to double check the definition of militia. Giving lethal weapons to every Tom, Dick and Harry has absolutely nothing to do with a “well regulated militia”.
            In any case, nobody is proposing to disarm responsible gun owners. Expanding Reagan’s gun control policy to include sales via the Internet and at gun shows to limit the probability of irresponsible persons, including criminals and mentally ill people, to purchase lethal weapons should be a no brainer.

          • Troy Couch

            its already a crime to buy and sell firearms over the internet with out the use of a federally licensed firearms dealer receiving said firearm and the end purchaser filling out paperwork… any other fantasy I can help dispel for you?

          • Troy Couch

            Did you learn that from your history class? maybe the mainstream media? Every man of legal age was considered the militia, each expected to have the arms and ammo to defend liberty and freedom.

          • Dominick Vila

            The needs that existed when our country was barely a nation, when a British counter attack was likely, when our military capabilities were, indeed, limited to a militia, are very different from the realities of the present.
            Our military is second to none, our National Guard is outstanding, our intelligence agencies are among the best in the world, and our law enforcement capabilities are outstanding. We can repel any foreign or domestic threat without the need of arming criminals and mentally disturbed individuals or hunting Bambi with semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines.

          • Independent1

            Sorry!! If you believe those quotes were made by the people you say, you’re more retarded than I am.

            The musket was not called a rifle until around 1815 and the pistol wasn’t invented until after that. George Washington died in 1799 – HE NEVER MADE THAT QUOTE!!

            And I have my doubts that Mason even made the quote you noted, and if he did, he was one of the paranoids like Jefferson that Madison made fun off about having chimerical fears – fantasies of their imaginations – before he wrote the 2nd Amendment.

            And a militia is just what is an organized call-up army of which there are no legal ones in America today, so there is really no one in America today that the 2nd Amendment really applies to.

            You gun lovers will stop at no degree of distortion will you, to try and justify keeping nothing more than killing machines that have no use to the average citizen in America except for the few that are true hunters!!!!!!

          • cheechio

            so, rather than arm the good people, give them a fighting chance, you want to try and disarm the criminal, by some faulty belief that disarming everyone, and nullifying a constitutional right enumerated in the bill of rights the criminal element will have less access, and eventually no access to a firearm. good luck with that left wing idealism…

          • Independent1

            You sound like an NRA sheep – still believing that guns will protect you. Owning a gun puts you in more danger than not owning one. Less than 3% of homicides are justifiable as self defense even though well over 50% of the people killed by guns actually either carry or could have gotten a gun they owned. But sadly most gun owners never get to the gun they own before they’re killed.

            Did you read this from the studies??

            The issue of “home defense” or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed
            suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons
            inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

          • Troy Couch

            let me help you here. ”
            A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
            seems pretty simple….

          • Independent1

            You’re right, it is pretty simple: The 2nd Amendment is about nothing but militias – it does not give a citizen not involved in a militia any right to own a gun.

            When Madison wrote the 2nd Amerndment, there was no standing federal army, none of the states had an army, there were no police, there were no sheriff’s there was no law enforcement – period. All there was were citizens who agreed to come together in times of trouble called a militia. So when
            Madison says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, he’s talking about the people who had agreed to form a “regulated militia”. The entire 2nd Amendment is contngent on the phrase: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state!!!

            Since well regulated militias are no longer needed because there’s a federal army, there are national guards in every state and police stations in almost every city, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t really apply to anyone today if you interpret the 2nd Amendment correctly.

            See this from ex Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens:

            For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

            What Madison really intended was for the 2nd Amendment to read as follows:

            “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

        • The Goat

          Your comprehension of the English language is sorely lacking. Do you not understand what “right of the PEOPLE” means?

          “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
          state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be

          plural noun: people; noun: people; plural noun: peoples
          human beings in general or considered collectively.

          the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.

      • ralphkr

        When will you guns uber all folks realize that the first time the 2nd Amendment was exercised was by George Washington amassing 13,000 militiamen to put down an uprising against the Federal gov (Whiskey Rebellion).

        • When will p[people understand “uninfringed” ? Our constitution should not be considered an outdated piece of paper as so many do. America needs to start to follow it the way our founders intended. Trying to turn America into some UN ruled country with a tyrant in office is a poor experiment.

      • Dominick Vila

        Wrong. The main focus of gun control is to expand Reagan’s gun control act to include the sale of guns via the Internet and gun shows to minimize the probability of gun violence. I know a person who suffers from dual personality disorder and cannot function without powerful drugs who not only own a gun, but is currently trying to get a concealed weapon permit. Believe me, she and people like her, should not own a gun and run around with one in their purse or pocket. That’s a tragedy waiting to happen.

        • cheechio

          it will fail so long as the 2nd amendment exists, though the court battles will take their time. So its to prevent violent people from acting out with firearms? why doesn’t the effort encompass preventing violent people from acting out as a whole? seems like it would be a better use of activist effort and might not infringe on peoples rights so much? I am sad to hear that you know someone who is potentially unsafe with a firearm. i know people from NY who lost their licenses and had thousands of dollars of firearms confiscated because a family member in their household was on anti depressants for a few weeks. additionally they had them locked up and out of the reach of those on the anti depressants, but it wasn’t enough for the state or police… does that seem justified?

          • Dominick Vila

            The person I cited lives in Florida, the state of Stand Your Ground. The fact that someone has been taking anti-depressants for years, and cannot function without them is not enough to confiscate her weapons or deny her the right to carry concealed weapons.
            Yes, it looks like law enforcement got carried away in the example you mentioned.

    • ralphkr

      Kindly explain, bicfj,why Switzerland which mandated that every household with service age men have military grade weapons on hand but deaths due to gunfire was very low. Israel is another country saturated with guns with lower gun death rate than the US. It is not how many guns but how violent the people are who have the guns and US citizens are the most violent people in any industrialized nation. Must be in our water.

      • bicfj

        Citizens of those countries have all these military rifles because they are in the military reserves and are subject to strict discipline including proper use of those rifles.

        99 percent of the US citizens demanding their gun rights are not so disciplined, are not in the military or reserves, and, as you state are a more violent people.

        There should not be so many guns that negligent US citizens allow to drift into violent uses.

        • ralphkr

          You seem to forget, bicfj, that not just the members of reserves have access to those weapons but everyone in that family since they are not kept locked away in the majority of cases.

        • cheechio

          Is Bloomberg, or the anti gun movement you are speaking for, for that matter suggesting or putting training and safety courses out there for the nations gun owners? no? well the NRA has been doing that for decades… its all about gun bans and disarmament to you guys, which is what feeds the NRA…

        • Troy Couch

          Millions of firearms with a very low % of them used in crimes… what is your real motivation? Do they just scare you?

    • Dorboln

      Prove any of that

    • Steve Daily

      You’re retarded.

    • DEFENDER88

      Some of your “facts” are totally wrong.
      That is part of the problem, too much mis/dis-information out there.

      For one thing, assault type weapons account for less then 1/10 of 1% of death and gun crime in this country. Hand guns, yes, but not assault weapons. It is an emotional thing because a rifle was used at Sandy Hook and I understand that – but it is not a wide spread root problem.
      And she(Mary) is wrong about her assertion that many average gun owners have military grade weapons. They have weapons that *look* like military weapons but they are not military grade. They have the same functionality as standard sporting/hunting arms. The problem is not the weapon, it is the propensity for violence in people. Address that problem and you will make progress. There are many motivators/drivers here – the mentally ill and the broken mental health system, poverty leading to drug trade etc, etc.

      Fewer guns equals fewer deaths – totally wrong. You cannot validate that invalid assertion/assumption/guess. The level of violent behavior is what determines crime levels and the number of deaths, Not the availability of guns – a large Harvard Law Study(Hardly a gun rights bastion) shows(with supporting data) this positive correlation and “fact”.
      If guns are not available, people will find another way – machetes in Africa for exa.

      Mary is right about one thing – we need to work together with mutual respect to try to solve some problems. But with Progressives continually demonizing gun owners I dont see it happening.

      I dont think progressives know who/how many they are dealing with – they think gun owners are hard core aggressive ignorant republican red necks etc and dont realize that it is really middle America, most of your neighbors(well maybe not yours) and the backbone of this country. And have guns for, by far, mostly defensive and sporting purposes. There are, after all, about 120million gun owners in this country(40-50%), hardly a fringe group.

      As for suicides – without a gun, people will find another way – this is also a documented/studied – fact(world wide).

      As for her comment about the 31,000 gun deaths here – 95% of them are drug and gang violence related or suicides which I dont consider a crime. And dont tell me what I can and cannot do with my own life(ie suicide) as long as it does not hurt someone else.
      You dont want people telling women what they cant do with their own bodies do you?

      Again – address the propensity for violence – the root causes for violence and you will make progress. Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill, criminals, etc – we ALL agree on that and could probably make some progress on that if you stop demonizing gun owners.
      But, like in here, the push is to ban weapons, registration to confiscation, Bloomberg, demonize gun owners, etc – you cant rally/motivate/inflame the gun owners much more than that.
      But when you try to cram something down our throats like a Tea Tax and weapons *confiscation*(ie Lexington and Concord), now Conn., Colorado, etc you get rebellion. If not physical then poitical This is still the USA not Iraq or Nazi Germany, or England or Australia.

      BTW the NRA sets the standards for Gun Safety training in this country and that includes for Police. Continue to follow Finstein and Bloomberg if you want and demonize the NRA, but how has that worked for you so far?

      And dont bother with the names, Ive been called most already in here – ignorant redneck, baby killer, NRA Shill,

    • Gregg Barnes

      You have ZERO idea what you are talking about. In the last 20 years, gun deaths have dropped over 40 percent. Its been well proven that there has NEVER been a gun control law that has done anything to stop dun crime. “Assault weapons”, although there is no such thing, accounted for about 3.5 percent of all firearm related deaths last year. Maybe you should do some reading before you speak.

    • trigger

      ha smart one your polatician are not tellpng all we have background checks we do in ny. the legal gun dealer have tto get a check on you before you get your gub. the problem is the gangs and all you stupid gun grabbers only look for legal gun owners what the problem youu anti gun people are to afraid to go after them look at chicago and stupid mayor keeps saying gun control which chicago has the stricckest why not the gangs to scared to go after them that’s your problem

    • Troy Couch

      bicfi ,well go from your last statement first. How do you force criminals who steal firearms to background check before the theft? Semi auto rifles with high capacity magazines make up less that 5% of all firearm crimes. Fewer guns does not equate to less deaths, we have more firearms in America today than ever before ,and the number of deaths has dropped significantly. Any more attempts at your reasons for attacking law abiding citizens?

  • whodatbob

    Mary Sanches hit a home run with this article! The middle ground is where progress is always accomplished. Bloomberg is an extremist, as such he turns most off.

  • rzinny1

    It is sad state, when an unarmed customer comes in to discuss his phone bill in Detroit and the clerk handled the customer’s issue by pulling out an assalt rifle. And the nra doesn’t has no comment! (And it was all captured on camera)

    • Allan Richardson

      When we said that phone bill was highway robbery, we didn’t mean it THAT WAY!

    • Foster Glorch

      It’s assault rifle not assalt . Also ” And the nra doesn’t has no comment! ” may be the worst sentence ever . I’m sure the NRA hasn’t answered it because they never heard of the situation and I’m sure more happened in this little scenario than you described .

      • rzinny1

        Sorry for missing the “u” when i proof read the blog. People who complain about typo’s and about grammer can’t find real things to complain about. You understood the sentence and that is all that matters. And as far as the “little scenario” , like I said, it was recorded on video and showed on tv.

        • Foster Glorch

          On video or not it doesn’t mean the NRA knows about it . Not every person or organization knows about everything . Also direct me to this video I’d like to hear the audio because I’m sure this person didn’t calmly walk in to discuss their bill and boom the clerk shoved a gun in their face .

  • Foster Glorch

    ” there is little use for a hunter to have a military-grade weapon. ”
    The assault STYLE weapons this know nothing references are no where near military grade .

    • Dorboln

      And as far as use, that depends on the weapon and the game being hunted.

    • cheechio

      simple fact is the civilian AR 15 or AK pattern rifles that they are referring to with a statement like that are some of the most versatile firearms a civilian can own in a majority of the United States; hunting, survival, target, home defense can all be covered by that one weapon. Semi auto with light recoil and is adjustable for smaller framed people, easier to clean and field strip than many other firearms and enough oomph to bring down medium game with more affordable ammo than most other firearms… all very desirable traits in a firearm.

      • Dominick Vila

        The only gun owners that benefit from having a semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines are those determined to kill innocent people.

        • Troy Couch

          Dominick you seem to be a little confused. The number of semi auto rifles is in the millions, the number of crimes committed with them in the few thousand. Why are you really against the lawful and law abiding owners?

          • Dominick Vila

            I am not against law abiding folks owning a gun, hunting, target practice, or being able to defend ourselves. I am against the sale of lethal weapons to people with a criminal record, to people who need powerful drugs to function because of serious mental illnesses, and I question the need to own semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines.

          • emkkahn

            You do realize that a semi-auto is 1 pull, 1 shot don’t you? A little .22 revolver in my wife’s purse is a “semi-auto” in that respect. And under this administration where Harry Reid regularly calls honest American citizens “terrorists” I would never consider letting letting them expand back ground checks. I’m sure that anyone with an American flag in their front yard or a “don’t tread on me” bumper sticker on their truck would be considered a threat.

        • BenAround

          Actually, the number of people murdered by rifles–of any kind–in the U.S., each year are somewhat less than the number of people killed by shotguns or hammers (less than 500)–including the mass murders in Aurora and Newtown. This is true in spite of the fact that more than a hundred million guns are owned by citizens (and immigrants)–a large percentage of which are semi-automatics with high capacity magazines. Most of these gun owners bear arms responsibly. And a lot of the people killed by automatic weapons (handguns predominently) with high-capacity magazines each year are not people who are in the least innocent. So, your assertion is so blatantly uninformed as to make you appear to be a complete fool on this subject! I would encourage you to reconsider your position and do some fact-checking before you put yourself out there.
          One other fact that is overlooked by liberals who advocate for magazine limits is that, since the vast majority of gun deaths are handgun suicides, putting a limit on magazine capacity is not likely to prevent any but the most persistent and incompetent person intent on suicide (this is probably worth a macabre Youtube satire for libs who don’t get the point). Which only goes to show how ignorant liberals are about the actual effect of the laws they advocate for.

  • edsilverwing .

    Why not be less biased and tell both sides of the story? It seems you are getting paid by Bloomberg to tell lies about gun owners. There have been less deaths from accidents with guns not more. How about auto deaths, lets do something about that?

    • Independent1

      I’m not sure what deaths from accidents has to do with anything. Fact is there are almost as many deaths each year from firearms as there are from autos: there were 31,500 firearms deaths in 2010.

      And the highest incidents of firearms deaths occur in the states with the highest ownership rate of guns. Of the 11,000 or so firearms related deaths each year, less than 3%, that’s less than 330 of those deaths were justifiable homicides for the purpose of self protection. Although a large percentage of the people killed by a gun actually owned a gun, they were either killed by their own gun or were not able to get or use the gun they owned to protect themself.

      And most of those deaths occurred in states where the firearms ownership was better than 40% with the highest incidents of firearms deaths actually occurring in the states which had close to 60% gun ownership. All of which blows a complete hole the NRA’s lies about owning a gun makes you safer!! It simply is not true.

      Owning a gun actually increases by almost 5 times, the probability that you or another member of your household will be killed by a gun; quite likely the gun that you own. Owning a gun has become such a large liability that many insurance companies (life, health and even other) have added a question to their applications for insurance about a gun being owned in your home. If it’s not already happening, it soon will be, owning a gun will cost you when it comes time to buy insurance- or maybe even mortgage your home. Because banks are also becoming aware of the added liability of gun ownership; it adds a risk to the probability that a gun owner will live to payback their mortgage..

      Here’s some statistics from an educational website for the University of Utah that you and other posters for the above article might find enlightening:

      The issue of “home defense” or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed
      suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It
      would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

      • 1952Willysm38

        Where do you get the number for 31,500 gun deaths in 2011? I checked the FBI website total number of homicides by any weapon in 2011 12,664.
        Firearms accounted for 8,583 of those deaths.

        Handguns accounted for 6,220, rifles 323,

        shotguns (more than rifles) 356, other gun 97,

        and not reported 1587. Now look at other weapons

        Knives 1694 (a lot more than rifles)

        Blunt objects 496 still higher than rifles

        Hands and fist 728 (more than double that of rifles)

        You can find it all here

        But don’t let facts get in your way. Homicide rate has been dropping is you go with the FBI page. I dont know if this counts suicide or not, but if a person is going to end there own life not have a gun is not going to stop them.

        • The Goat

          Gun grabbers and liberals only agree with science when it agrees with their agenda and when it doesn’t they make it up.

        • Independent1

          First of all, the FBI does not get involved in recording all gun related shootings;only those related to some form of crime. And of the 31,500, around 19,000 were suicides with over 11,000 homicides.

          Here’s a little more on that from the files of the University of Utah:

          Gun Control Issues, Public Health, and Safety
          Gunshot wounds impact severely on the criminal justice as well as health care systems. Some basic statistics are important in understanding the magnitude and severity of the social and economic burden to the U.S. The subject remains contentious. (Glantz and Annas, 2009)

          In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012).

          The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.2 deaths per 100,000 population in 2009. The highest rate was 28.4/100,000 for African-American males, more than quadruple the rate of 6.3/100,000 for white males. (CDC, 2009)

          • 1952Willysm38

            Now you are changing the dates again from 2011 to 2010. The homicides on the fbi website count them all just not suicides. From the CDC website in 2010 38,364 people killed themselves that year. Of that 19,392 used a firearm, which is about half of the total deaths. Which yes is very sad but suicide is going to happen with or without guns and the rate won’t change, they will just fine other ways. So lets subtract the suicides right off from you number. 600 being killed from an accidental gunshot is really a small number, more people per year die from slips and falls than that. If you look at the FBI site you can clearly see that the number homicides have decreased each year, and that shows in homicides that used firearms as well. Again I know facts seem to allude you.

            I suggest you go out to a range meet with the people there, take your time to get to know how a firearm works, hell you might even find a new hobby.

          • 1952Willysm38

            Your numbers a still faulty as well in 2010 only 8874 homicides where committed by firearms of all types

          • BenAround

            He is using the Obama-commissioned CDC numbers which, unlike the FBI numbers areas are subject to double counting due to using multiple sources. The Kaiser Foundation numbers are even less reliable because they use ICD codes, which depend on a medical diagnosis, in addition to other sources. These numbers are not as free of the liberal political anti-gun agenda as the FBI (“Just the facts, Ma’am”) crime statistics–even in spite of the abuse of the FBI to persecute political enemies by the Obama Department of InJustice under the most corrupt Attorney General in the history of the U.S. Which shows that a president elected by ignorant community organizers is more than likely cut from the same cloth as the charismatic, election stealing, dictator of a third world country–like his peers in Venezuela. But socialists are famous for co-opting the ignorant underclasses into providing them with a populist power base–even though they exploit them and despise them for how easily deceived they are. They also must keep the underclasses where they are in order to continue to exploit them. Which is why they will never support programs to actually encourage the underclass to become educated, morally upright, and, consequently, more wealthy. The liberal machine is like the Matrix. Only, instead of sucking energy, it sucks votes while keeping supporters trapped in poverty, entertained by pleasant fictions, and insulated from reality. Independent1 is kind of a Mr. Smith clone for the liberal machine.

      • BenAround

        Yeah, I got knicked in the thumb a few weeks ago by the slide on my .45 down at the range. I held it wrong because I was sighting in my laser sight and using a rest for steadiness–just forgot about the slide for one round. But I stopped the blood flow with Scotch tape and a target dot and kept shooting. Does that count as a gun accident or an attempted thumbicide?
        What you really mean is that people who are in possession of a gun in an ARMED assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot than people who are not in possession of a gun in an armed assault. Naturally! You can’t get shot by an unarmed assailent unless you let him get your gun away from you because you are a closet liberal and really just thought waving it around like on TV would be enough (sometimes it is but you better have it pointed in the right direction and ready to fire before he gets close). When an armed assailent finds you defending yourself, he has to either shoot at you or run away. If he is going to complete his intent to rape you or rob you, he has to shoot you or convince you to disarm yourself. So, fine, you can submit to rape or robbery without defending yourself if you wish. It may decrease your chance of being shot but it will increase your chance of being victimized and you will bear the psychological scars of blaming yourself for your self-imposed inability to defend yourself from being violated for the rest of your life. People who successfully defend themselves feel a lot better about themselves and are much less likely to commit suicide afterwards than those who allow themselves be helpless victims after knowing that they voluntarily chose that condition.

  • Landon Davis

    I am a card carrying member of the NRA. I have absolutely nothing to do with “gun violence”! These idiots do not even know what the NRA is!

    • emkkahn

      I would love to see the stats on how many mass shootings were done by an NRA member. I’ll bet it’s small to zero…. And yet, who gets demonized by the liberals? Meanwhile, when you actually do point out that most gun violence occurs in the inner city by black gang bangers, you’ll be called a “racist”….

  • emkkahn

    Chicago, Easter weekend: 45 shootings. Was even a single shooting done by an NRA member? Nope. So who’s to blame according to liberals? The NRA of course…

    • Independent1

      So let’s see. We’re picking on one city that happens to have a lot of gang violence; and somehow we would assume these gang members would belong to the NRA?? How clueless can you be?? Any dimwit would realize that gang members aren’t likely to belong to the NRA.

      But how about let’s look at the 12 states with the highest firearms mortality rates (these are states now, not just one city); and we find an interesting thing – all 12 of them have GOP governments today.

      Here’s a list of them:

      § Firearms
      Mortality per 100,000 – 2010


      New Mexico is the only normally blue state in the list – and because it’s sandwhiched between Texas and Arizona it takes on GOP characteristics.

      And I’ll guarantee you that a lot of those 20 people/100,000 being killed by firearms in Alaska are NRA members. And that they owned a gun when they were killed but were not able to use it to save their life.

      And if you have a minute, take a look at a response I left for edsilverwing below – THE NRA IS NOTHING BUT ANOTHER LIE MAKING MACHINE

      • emkkahn

        So what? Why demonize the NRA when most shootings are done by gangs in the inner cities and the Mexican border? Take out gang violence and suicide and the numbers support a pretty low gun violence rate in the US. Why the insistence at going after honest people when criminals are the ones killing people? It’s because gun control has NOTHING to do with “safety”. It has everything to do with disarming honest American citizens. Liberals are terrified of those…

        • Independent1

          Why Demonize the NRA?? Because next to the GOP it’s the most corrupt, ever lying, organization in America. Because it pays politicians to vote against things like background checks and keeping weapons off the streets that have no business being there!!!

          Because it constantly spreads lies about “buy a gun because it’s good self-protecion” when nothing could be further from the truth. If you spent even a few minutes reading that article I referenced you’d be aware that owning a gun is FAR MORE a liability and potention DEATH WEAPON to the owner -THAN IT WLL EVER BE!! A TOOL OF SELF PROTECTION!!

          What would you expect from an organization that can only exist if it keeps guns on the streets and clueless sheeple like yourself believing that owning a gun as a regular citizen makes sense -WHEN IT ABSOLUTELY DOESN’T!!!!

          And what would you expect from a totally corrupt organization that has paid and hoodwinked even Supreme Court judges to bastardize the constitution into declaring that the 2nd Amendement applies to people not involved in a militia WHEN IT DOESN’T!!!!


          • emkkahn

            I see far more corruption in Obama’s administration than I do on the right side of the aisle. Eric Holder picks and chooses which laws he wants to enforce. Harry Reid demonizes private citizens (the Kochs) on the Senate floor because they dare to exercise their first amendment rights. Lois Learner’s use of the IRS to target Obama’s political enemies, Hillary’s “what difference does it make?” after she let an American ambassador get murdered, Holder’s Fast and Furious gun running operations getting a border agent killed. Talk about the most corrupt administration in history. The GOP isn’t perfect, but really, they look like choir boys compared to Obama’s goons. And the NRA is a private organization that you aren’t forced to pay for unlike I am forced to pay for Obama’s vacations.
            Having a car will also increase your odds of dying (in a car accident) and you use your car far more than I use my guns. Which is why car accidents kill far more people than guns do.
            And people defend themselves, their families and their property everyday in America with guns. Maybe you don’t like that. Maybe you prefer a society of helpless victims. Maybe you support “No Gun Zones” that lead to mass shootings because that’s where you find hundreds of unarmed people that can’t shoot back.
            I won’t do anything to force you to own a gun. Go ahead, don’t own one. Put a sign on your lawn that proudly says, “I don’t own any guns!”
            But guns exist. Guns will always exist. And criminals will always have guns. Giving up MY guns will not do anything to take away THEIR guns.
            Oh and the 2A? Every able bodied American citizen is already part of the Militia.

          • Independent1

            Wow!! I haven’t run into anyone posting here with their head so far up their rectum!!

            Over the past 5 years plus, Cantor and Boehner have deliberately brought up one piece of legislation after another THEY KNEW FULL WELL WAS DEAD IN THE WATER, JUST TO WASTE TIME WILL SPENDING MONEY NEEDLESSLY!!

            Not only has the House voted more than 50 times to repeal Obmacare – WHICH WAS TOTAL NONSENSE!! It’s voted more than 30 times on other legislation they knew wouldn’t even be considered by the Senate. COSTING TAXPAYERS WELL OVER 100 MILLION DOLLARS FOR NOTHING!!! AN ABSOLUTE WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY!!

            And as far as corruption goes – What do you call starting a war on lies and distortions just so you and your right-wing buddies in every industry associated with fighting a war can use to defraud the government of trillions of dollars????

            What do you call passing UNFUNDED TAX CUTS just so YOU AND YOUR BUDDIES can keep more money in THEIR POCKETS while you run up over 8 trillion dollars on a credit card????

            What do you call bowing to Big Pharma and passing an unfunded piece of legislation called Medicare Part D that allows Big Pharma to rip off seniors becuase you’re insisted the government can’t negotiate drug costs – again while running all the expenses to run that benefit on A CREDIT CARD???

            What do you call trying to privatize Social Security knowing that it would jeopardize the retirements of every senior in America, just so your buddies in the Financial Sector can make trillions of dollars from the monies taxpayers pour into their retireement accounts??? Fortunately, even the dumb Republicans realized that rip off and hasn’t allowed it to happen!!!

            The GOP is nothing more than the Italian Mafia supposedly legalized because they pretend to be politicians when in fact their nothing but absolute crooks looking to rip off the American taxpayer anyway they can – be it starting wars, be it cutting taxes so they can get even more out of paying their fair share for running the country, be it cutting budgets to let taxpayers die so once again they can reduce expenses and keep more money in their pockets to build bigger yachts, have bigger parties, do even more traveling around the world.

            Not only are you an NRA sheeple – you’re a totally clueless GOP sheeple as well!!!!!

          • emkkahn

            Your continued personal attacks on me and name calling makes me chuckle.
            I’ll bet you can go “on and on” with your liberal talking points. I hear them parroted everyday on the big networks.
            Funny tho, you can’t address Eric Holder, H Clinton or Lois Learner specifically. All you want to do is whine that the GOP has some big money. So what? That’s the American dream to make some big money. I love the fact the Eric Cantor has kept Obamacare’s poor performance in the spotlight in congress. It needs to be. Lot’s of people have lost their good healthcare and are now forced by the government to pay more for their health insurance. I look forward to seeing the GOP use it in November to start cleaning some of the corrupt liberals out of the Senate and the House.
            Your class envy is really kind of sad. If you want more money, then go out and earn it. Don’t spend your life sitting around wishing you had what the other guy has. That’s kind of childish. Society owes you nothing. You do not have a right to a higher paying job, or “free” housing. Improve yourself instead of thinking that some millionaire needs to give you something that you didn’t earn yourself.
            And “big pharma”? It costs billions to safely create new drugs under the grueling oversight of the FDA. Why shouldn’t they make billions? They save millions and millions of lives every year. The best and brightest need to be there and they should be paid lots of cash for what they do because they’ve earned it.
            But you’ve drifted way off topic and haven’t really explained how I am a “sheeple” because I own guns to defend my family?
            You know what stands out the most in your posts, tho? It’s a deep lack of gratitude for what you have and the world you live in. You might try some self reflection, you seem to be very, very angry at people who haven’t done anything to you.

          • Independent1

            And let’s talk about the corruption you supposedly see!!

            Was it pushing for the auto bailout and stimulus which virtually every economist admits kept America out of ANOTHER GOP CREATED DEPRESSION??

            Was it Obama getting us out of Iraq which not only saved billions but also saved the lives of probably hundreds of American soldiers?

            Was it Obama insisting on a war on fraud in the defense and healthcare sectors which has punished more crooks and recovered more fraud money than any previous president??

            Was it managing the economy in a way that despite total GOP obstructionism there have been more than 50 stright months of jobs growth with more jobs created in 5 plus years than Bush 2 was able to create in 8 yeas?

            Was it managing the immigration situation such that the Obama administration has rounded up and deported more troublesome illegals who were costing America big bucks than any previous president?

            Was it being the smallest spending president since Eisenhower who actually cut deficit spending faster than any president since Truman and actually kept his promise in cutting deficit spending in half within his 1st 4 budgets??

            I could go on and on like this – but let’s see you list even one of these supposed corruption things that Obama and the Dems have done!! Come on!!

            Let’s see them!! I guarantee they’ll be nothing but regurgitating the lies you’ve heard from Faux News

          • BenAround

            By the end of his term, Obama will double the national debt. You can’t double the national debt by being the smallest spending president in history. Do the math. When you double something it is bigger than any previous increase. Duh! Playing games with deficit reduction percentages after having the largest deficits in history is the worst liberal economic lie in history and it undercuts the credibility of anything else you say. And, yes, Bush took Iraq from Saddam Hussein but any fool can turn Iraq over to Al Qaida as a reward for the Trade Center bombings. Not exactly a winning transaction! Pulling out without a status of forces agreement is not much of an accomplishment. Iraq is back the way it was–only with the terrorists in charge. Oh, and you saw the news recently where the GM bailout cost the taxpayers way more than expected. Ford Motor Co. didn’t take a bailout and they are doing better than ever. Not bailing out GM would just result in people driving better cars than the junk GM puts out. How does that ruin the economy? What really ruins an economy is someone like George Soros betting against the national currency and preventing jobs projects like the pipeline. The war on fraud is just another tax. Obama pays bounty hunters and whistle blowers to find errors in billing and makes people prove it’s not fraud (guilty till proven innocent, you know). You don’t think he really cares about fraud. If he did, he wouldn’t send his minions out to commit so much of it. He only cares about collecting more revenue to buy votes with. So, go ahead and believe what you hear on the Communist News Network, the All Brains Crazed, the Mind Sucking NoBody Cares network, and the Canned BS network. The “thrill up the leg” has replaced the stiff-armed salute to their Fuehrer for these network commentators and the disinformation campaign by these talking head tools of the administration rivals Pravda. You know a country is in trouble when the tools on TV are in the tank for the current office-holding demagogue. We were far safer with Bush and the communist propaganda machine hating on him.

            But the worst thing Obama did was abandon the consulate in Benghazi and prevent any aid from even being attempted after putting those people in harms way. That is such a despicable cowardly act that I can’t even imagine any other president in the history of the country who would have done it. Then he puts out the lie (which, as we are finally getting proof of, was known to be a lie at the time) about the filmmaker and gets on a plane to Vegas for a campaign event–thinking he could cover it up until after the election. And, his pet council, the AG (who is supposed to be the people’s council), along with the clones at the State Department, have refused to deliver the smoking gun communications. But they are gradually being uncovered. Talk about cowardly dereliction of duty as Clown in Chief and High Crimes and Misdemeanors by violating his oath of office!

          • BenAround

            Ha! So right! Why is it that liberals don’t all post signs on their lawns that proudly proclaim their property to be a gun free zone? It is because they don’t even believe their own B.S. about guns not being an effective crime deterrent. They know that the only reason they are not singled out is because the perp doesn’t know whether he will face a gun or not. They are lucky that their neighbors are there to protect their cowardly hides. And, yet, they say they want gun laws to turn the entire country into one big Washington, D.C., where there are more than 20 homicides per 100,000 and more than 17 of those are committed by illegally owned guns. Of course, it would never get that bad in the rest of the country because Washington D.C. is populated by the most vicious people on the planet–liberals. And that is why liberals want to disarm the rest of us–so they can do to us what their comrades in D.C. do to their victims without fear of getting any return fire.

          • Independent1

            Removing a misplaced comment.

          • BenAround

            So, you do believe in property ownership! Seriously, who do you think finances the NRA? It is people like me who find people like you to be the scariest supporters of government tyranny on the planet. And not all liberal articles about guns are truth handed down from God. You believe what you want but there are over a million times a year where a citizen uses a gun in self-defense. Most of the time no shot is fired because the presence of the weapon and the willingness to use it is enough to stop the criminal from proceeding with his intent. So, statistics that only measure who gets shot are horribly distorted by the fact that the chances of a person getting shot go way up when the shooting actually starts. However, the chances of getting raped go way down when the intended victim pulls a gun from the purse or concealed holster. Nothing says, “NO!” to rape as authoritatively as a .45 semi-automatic.

          • BenAround

            So, you call the NRA liars because they say things you don’t agree with. And you choose to believe liberal academics from Boston who have an agenda behind their statistics. Why are they not corrupt, lying academicians because I don’t agree with them. So, you see, lying is in the subjective mind of the person. I think Obama is a liar because so many of the things he says don’t match the facts. Any study that cherry picks facts to the point of denying that a gun is good self-protection is a lying study. Even the 2013 CDC study, using FBI numbers and other sources, found that the frequency of someone successfully defending themselves or their property with a gun is somewhere between 300,000 (on the low end) and more than a million times each year. So, any article that claims that people who use guns to defend themselves are more likely to die is clearly biased and agenda based because the CDC acknowledged that people who use a firearm to defend themselves against an assault are far less likely to suffer injury than those who use any other means of resistance. Look it up and see if you can rationalize it with the liberal academicians who cherry pick their statistics.

      • BenAround

        I am more concerned with the homicides because suicide is a personal choice presumably made by a consenting adult and, as tragic as it may be, it is not a threat to me or my family. Taking suicide out of the statistics, you find a completely different picture where a non-suicidal person (outside of major metro areas) is much safer from homicide in states with high gun ownership. And gun control does not help at all with homicides because people with homicidal intent can always get an illegal gun. And you are so right! Gang members aren’t NRA members. They don’t care about gun rights because they are interested in perpetrating gun “wrongs.” Gang members vote in a block for liberals and they hate the NRA because they don’t want their victims shooting back. Duh!

        • Independent1

          I see, so although many people will commit suicide with a gun, who would more than likely not commit suicide any other way, let’s just disregard it as a reason for controlling the sale guns. Sounds typical coming from a fake pro-life person. Many people will use a gun to commit suicide that wouldn’t try it any other way for several reasons: a gun is perceived to kill quickly thereby less painfully and with less chance that the person wanting to commit suicide will survive. Very few other means of suicide, aside from jumping off a cliff or building or bridge are perceived to be so final and sure.

          Would you care to produce your source for these claims you’re making that “Gang members vote in a block for liberals and they hate the NRA because they don’t want their victims shooting back. Duh!”

          • BenAround

            As to my comment on “Gang members voting in a block for liberals,” It is the demographics of the gangs that define the voting propensity. Inner city demographics have a higher incidence of gangs and vote primarily democratic. D.C., NY City, Chicago, New Oreleans, etc. The comment about them hating the NRA was tongue in cheek. I don’t think they care one way or the other about the NRA since they don’t care about the legality of guns and they know that the gun laws are loosely enforced and are inhibitors only to people who obey the law. Your comment about people who commit suicide with a gun not likely to commit suicide without one is naïve to the point of premeditated ignorance. Who do you know with suicidal intentions that somehow can’t come up with any other way to end their life if a gun is not available? So, yes, I am discounting suicides as being “gun caused.” Just as I am discounting criminal homicides as being “gun caused.” What I will acknowledge is that a gun is a pretty handy way for criminals to commit certain crimes. However, since a criminal is, by definition, a lawbreaker, only a fool would think that another law would stop him or her from breaking a gun law. In fact, anyone who commits a crime with a firearm is already breaking at least one gun law. How would more gun laws be more effective?

  • paul

    It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Michael Bloomberg actually owned stock in gun companies, and was driving his own profits by ginning up fears of gun bans.

  • Common Sense

    For the past forty years we have been living in a society that murders its own, why are we surprised about gun violence? We live in a culture of death, and gun deaths and other violent acts are symptoms of a decayed society. Of course no one will talk about it.

    • emkkahn

      The left has demonized traditional Judeo/Christian values for over 50 years. Then they replaced fathers with welfare in black families… It’s no coincidence that most gang bangers are young black males: The American black family had no chance under liberal Democrat control. This tragedy could be stopped right now except for the race baiters like Jackson and Sharpton and (sadly) Obama and Holder who continue to fan the flames of divisiveness instead of spreading a message of morality and personal responsibility… I can only pray that the once proud black community can turn its back on the liberal lies and find its way back to the moral high road it once had. My heart breaks for the mothers of these gang bangers who have learned no empathy or shame…

      • Independent1

        And exactly what are “the liberal lies”??

        Don’t give me any morality lessons from the right-wing worshippers of the Devil’s party. NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THE GOP HAS ON ONCE OF MORALITY!!

        No party that worships money and spreads lies like the GOP has one once of conscience or or one bit of morality. The GOP’s ‘FAMILY VALUES’ are the biggest fake on the planet.

        So let’s hear about these liberal lies!!

        And when you explain them, be aware that he ‘TAKERS’ in America are FAR AND AWAY, THE CONSERVATIVES – NOT THE LIBERALS!!

        Not only do red states lead the nation in violence and homicides, red states lead the nation by far in every mode of death – which is why on average people in red states live 2 year shorter lives than people in Blue states.

        And 20 of the 23 states that have more than 15% of their residents living in poverty are Red States. Which explains why 12 of the 15 states who suck the most welfare, including food stamps are also Red States. And why of the 455 counties in America who suck the most welfare, more than 90% of them (421) voted for Mitt Romney in the 2012 election.

        • The Goat

          If you take out the black and hispanic populations from the equation in the red states then the statistics are radically different. Red states had the welfare and other social programs forced on them resulting in the massive generational poverty of the ever spawning and maladaptive “minorities” that will soon be invading your mostly white BLUE states soon to destroy them and turn you away from your liberal delusions. By that time though it will be far too late…

        • emkkahn

          Liberal lie #1: Giving poor people money for doing nothing will improve their lot in life. It doesn’t. It makes them dependent on “free” money.
          Liberal lie #2: Removing the stigmas of religion and society will make a better society. It doesn’t. It creates a whole culture that is focused on themselves and is not worried about what anyone thinks of them.
          Liberal lie #3: Liberals “care and help” the black population. Liberal social programs have destroyed black families by removing the need for strong fathers to present in the home. Most black children are born outside of wedlock and most abortions kill black babies.
          Liberal lie #4: No Gun Zones make schools safer from shootings. They don’t. Almost every major shooting has taken place in a “No Gun Zone” where none of the victims had the opportunity to shoot back.
          Liberal lie #5: Gun controls reduce gun crime. It doesn’t. The cities with the highest rates of gun crime are far and away the cities with the strictest gun control.

        • BenAround

          Let’s just take 3 red states with high gun ownership as examples (Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming)
          Utah: 43.9% own guns, 1.9 murders per 100,000 but only .8 murders per 100,000 by guns.
          Idaho: 55.3% own guns, 1.3 murders per 100,000 but only .8 murders per 100,000 by guns.
          Wyoming: a whopping 59.7% own guns, 1.4 murders per 100,000 but only .9 murders per 100,000 by guns.
          Now, the only two blue states that are equal or better on low rate of gun murders:
          Maine: 40.5% own guns, 1.8 murders per 100,000 but only .8 murders per 100,000 by guns–same as Utah and Idaho.
          Vermont: 42% own guns, 1.1 murders per 100,000 but only and amazingly low .3 murders per 100,000 by guns.
          A solid blue area outlier is our beloved Capital, Washington D.C: 3.6% own guns (legally), 21.8 murders per 100,000 and the vast majority of the murders, 16.5 per 100,000, are committed using guns–presumably illegally owned.
          New York, a blue state with strict gun control laws: only 18% own guns, 4.4 murders per 100,000, 2.7 murders per 100,000 by guns.

          So, this proves several truths that are extremely inconvenient for liberals:
          1. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. If guns killed people Wyoming would be pretty much depopulated instead of having the second lowest rate of gun murders in the U.S. Furthermore, D.C., with practically no guns, would have the lowest gun murder rate in the U.S. instead of the highest by an order of magnitude (10 times the average for the math challenged).
          2. Demographic distribution by race and religious culture is the most significant contributor to murder rates in general and to gun murder rates in particular. As one commenter pointed out, if you take out the concentration of murders in Atlanta, for example, and other large population centers in the Bible Belt, the numbers drop considerably. In other words, contrary to popular liberal myth, it is not fundamentalist Church-going Baptists who also own guns who contribute measurably to these statistics.
          3. Strict gun control laws do not improve an area’s chance of beating the national gun murder average per 100,000. New York (and particularly NYC), along with D.C., have some of the higher rates of gun murder and some of the strictest gun control laws. Famous athletes in recent memory have been jailed in both localities for simply owning and possessing a handgun–not even for committing a crime with it. Yet, gun murders are off the charts in D.C. and 9 times as high per 100,000 people in New York as in Vermont.
          Interestingly enough, the demographic segments of the population most likely to vote for liberal politicians are the same ones where the gun laws are the strictest and the gun murder rates are the highest. It is almost like a culture of self-destruction. Not only are they killing each other in large numbers, they are voting for the liberal politicians most likely to implement laws, policies, and social programs that help them to do so. The data deserves to be respected.
          By the way, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming have a majority percentage of people who believe in higher education, strong families, taking care of themselves, being independent of the government, defending themselves and their communities against criminal aggression, taking care of the poor people among their community without government assistance, and teaching good old fashioned Christian moral values to their children. Is it any wonder that they have among the lowest murder and gun murder rates in spite of the fact that their gun ownership rates are average or higher?

          • Independent1

            You’re spewing so many lies and distortions in your posts that I’m not even going to attempt to respond to any of them but this one. You’re clearly a typical pathological lying conservative.

            The gun ownership numbers you posted above are fairly accurate but your homicide rates are pure fantasies of your imagination. Trying to get us to believe that Wyoming for example had a homicide rate of 1.4 murders per 100,000 is so absurd it borders on the ridiculous. Fact is that in 2010 it had 15.6 FIREARMS HOMICIDES per 100,000 residents – a far cry from you’re totally fabricated .9 per 100,000 by guns.

            So don’t expect any further responses from me until you stop spewing lies and distortions by the millions!!!

            Here’s the list of FIREARMS MORTALITIES PER 100,000 IN 2010 for the states that led the nation in firearms mortality:

             Firearms Mortality per 100,000 – 2010
             TN-14.4;MO-14.0;SC-14.0

          • BenAround

            I don’t know where you get your numbers from. Must be from some liberal web site that thinks all deaths, including traffic accidents, are firearm homicides. My numbers above came from a table of stats listed on Wikipedia for firearm deaths by state. I just did a web search and used government sourced information because you were throwing these huge numbers around. Even the CDC (not exactly a front for the NRA) website lists the firearms homicides for Wyoming at 3.6 per 100,000. Total homicides per 100,000 are listed by the CDC at 5.3. So, your number of 15.6 is 3 times the total homicides from all causes and more than 4 times the number of firearm homicides–even using the CDC stats. So, while the Wikipedia table I was using my have understated Wyoming by 50%, your exaggeration was between 300% and 500% overstated. You can find my sources on Wikipedia (which source reference the FBI and law enforcement) and on the CDC homicide faststat pages which come at the data from medical records. Maybe you think your fabricated and unreferenced sources are more reliable?

          • BenAround

            I see that you discovered your numbers to be 5 year numbers and including suicides. I appreciate your owning up to the mistake. I hope that will take me out of the category of “typical lying conservative” for now. I know a lot of conservatives and I am quite serious when I say that they are much less likely to lie than someone who is trying to control their lives. I would also say that, even if they were lying, I would have a lot more sympathy for someone who lies to protect our freedom than someone who lies to take freedoms away to gain control over their own irrational phobias or, in the case of Obama and Reid, to pander to an irrationally fearful constituency.

          • Independent1

            I did some further checking and find that it’s me that’s wrong. I have to apologize. The numbers I was posting were from a 5-year combined study, not a single year. And the numbers you quoted appear to be correct for 2010. Sorry about flying off the handle!! I need to recheck the single-year numbers to see if what I had concluded still bears up that there’s no proof that more guns actually reduces murders or violence and that it’s actually on average the states with the most violence that do in fact have higher gun ownership. (Proving that more guns don’t solve our violence problems unless those more guns are in the hands of more law enforcement people). Again, I apologize for my previous comments.

          • BenAround

            No worries. We all have our moments. The problem with this debate is that it is not provable by statistics. We just disagree on principles. As much as I respect law enforcement, they seldom prevent a crime. In most cases, they don’t even apprehend the assailant at the scene. Usually it is much later, if ever. So, while only good morals can solve our violence problems, until the political correctness police admit that we actually do need some good old fashioned morality (and not just more cops), I think we have to be allowed to defend ourselves with the best tools available. More police simply leads to a police state. And, of course, that is socialism and fascism’s answer to the problem of crowd control. But it is not a state I want to live in.

          • Independent1

            Having agreed that I was mistakenly trying to compare some numbers I had which were not really relatable to the ones you posted, you’re stil not going to sell me on your nonsense that “guns don’t kill people”.

            A gun will turn a coward into a killer. It will turn someone who would be afraid to say Boo into someone who will commit a mass killing – just like Adam Lanza who probably weighed less than 120 lbs but because an AR-15 is such a killing machine, was able to kill 20 kids and 7 adults. I doubt seriously that if an AR-15 type gun was not available, a gun that’s so light weight with so little recoil that even a juvenile can handle it, that as small as Adam Lanza was that he would have been able to murder 27 people. It, in fact, it was THE GUN that made that mass murder possible.

            Just because you were able to use 3 states which are very sparsely populated which means that there are much fewer opportunities for people to get into violence type situations than the two places you’re trying to use for your counter argument, DC and NY, does in absolutely no way justify your idiot comment that “guns don’t kill people”. I can list you a few states with more than 40%+ gun ownership which have extremely high levels of firearms murders.

            Let’s take the murder capital of America for example: the state that has led the nation in gun related murders for the past 14 years in succession, Louisiana (remember DC is Not a State it is a district that is a magnet for crime because of the very transient nature of it being our nation’s capital where gun traffickers flourish despite whatever laws DC may have about controlling gun sales; and I think pretty much the same thing could be said about New York City – where a great many of those gun related murders happen that you’re focused on).

            So let’s look at Louisiana with 44.1% gun ownership and 7.7 gun related murders in 2010. It’s actually the only state where there were more than 5.5 gun related homicides/100.000 in 2010. It’s one of the bible belt states that really should fit into described in your item 3, but which it obviously does not. I think what has the biggest impact on the results of low homicide rates in Wyomin, Utah and Idaho, is together with what you pointed out, is that these are sparsely populated and the people there have much less intense interaction than they do in the more densely populated states.

            But all this aside let’s look at an article that was in the Huffington Post back last September from some people who did a study which will not be my take on it:

            Huffington Post 9/13/2013

            A new study of gun violence published by the
            American Journal of Public Health found that states with greater levels of gun ownership tend to have higher rates of gun-related murder. The study, conducted by Boston University professor Michael Siegel and coauthors Craig S. Ross and Charles King III, examines this relationship in all 50 states from 1981 to 2010. The researchers
            found that “for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent.”

            The authors note that, though they can’t prove a causal relationship between higher levels of gun ownership and homicide, “states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.”

            A more localized 1993 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which focused on
            the most populous counties in Tennessee, Washington and Ohio, found that “keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide.”

          • BenAround

            That’s right they can’t prove causal relationships. Just like you can’t prove that a gun will turn a coward into a killer. The people you are quoting all have strong liberal anti-gun agendas. And they have a way of finding evidence to support what they believe. I have lots of guns and they don’t control my mind or turn me into a killer. You are assuming that Adam Lanza was a coward. I don’t even know what makes you think that. He was clearly a mentally disturbed jealous and hate-filled individual who should have been institutionalized. His mother was a foolish woman who pampered him instead of putting him away. If you want to say that buying guns for a crazy person and taking him out shooting can turn a crazy person with a murderous motive into a crazy person with the means to carry it out, then I might agree.

        • BenAround

          This article is about guns–not healthcare. If liberals would take care of each other in their churches and communities instead of depending on the government to “love their neighbor” for them, they would find the need for government assistance greatly diminished. All you are demonstrating is that you depend solely on government to take care of people. There is nothing more evil than to expect an institution established primarily for violence and coercion (Government) to perform all of your charitable duties for you. So, don’t talk about the Devil as if you don’t serve him every time you vote for a wasteful government enforced social program instead of looking around you to see what you, personally, can do more efficiently and lovingly for your neighbor and for your community.

          People in red states give about twice as high a percentage of individual income to charities as do people in blue states. Analyze that statistic! Not a single blue state is in the top ten in charitable giving and the entire bottom ten are blue states. If that isn’t a good example of the contrast between good deeds vs. sanctimonious liberal promises and good utopian intentions (enforced at the point of government guns), I don’t know what is.

  • Steve Daily

    Wait, what? Wow, I didn’t realize NRA members controlled urban gang warfare and the prescribing of serotonin re-uptake inhibitors. C’mon, stop blowing smoke up our a**es.

  • WeNeedGroidFreeZones

    Rifles account for 4% of homicides and there are about 200 million of them.
    Blacks account for over 54% of homicides and there are about 40 million of them.
    I will never take any liberal’s opinion on guns seriously until they address that we don’t have a gun problem, we have a black violence problem.

  • Gigantopants

    If Bloomberg wants to disarm Americans he should lead by example and have his bodyguards turn theirs in first. They can defend Bloomberg’s life with harsh language if guns are so bad.

  • FNP45rocks

    Really want to curb gun violence? Simple. Lock up all the Gang members and those who use a firearm in a criminal act and keep them there.

  • Edward Bernas

    NRA members are law abiding citizens why do they need to step up. We have had firearm safety programs for years within the NRA (Eddie Eagle). Bloomberg’s group has nothing to do about safety but just the implementation of more feel good fire arm legislation that does nothing to stop criminals. You can have all the laws in the world, criminals are that for one reason, they are criminals and do not follow the law. Violent crime is DOWN 73% since 1993 while firearm sales have risen, so go after the crooks and leave the NRA alone otherwise awaking a sleeping tiger may not be in your best interest (Colorado recall elections, Bloomberg outspent NRA 3-1 and lost)

  • cheechio

    seems non-NRA members need to recognize the problem isn’t a “gun violence” problem, but a VIOLENCE problem. People like Mr. Bloomberg are serving a civilian disarmament agenda, not a Gun safety or responsible ownership agenda. That is the root of why he is a talking point for the NRA… and to be honest it doesnt need to be Bloomberg speaking at the podium: its the agenda alone. When NYC or any other heavily anti gun area implements a civilian firearms training program, and enables recreational shooting to its citizens, with an opt in licensing program, and actively seeks not to disarm, but to merely ensure responsible use; that might be something the middle ground people can get behind. The issue is its still a disarmament agenda in Bloomberg’s head along with all the other anti gun folks…

    • emkkahn

      You are correct. Total disarmament is the only “solution” to guys like Bloomberg. No matter how much safety training or experience a private individual has, Bloomberg wants him defenseless. If that gets some honest people killed by criminals, it seems like that is perfectly acceptable to Bloomberg and his anti-gun groups.
      Really tho, it just boils down to the basic liberal agenda which to have every citizen in America dependent on the government for their lives. And of course that starts with a government monopoly on weapons.