Nanny Bloomberg's war on firearms

About a month after the U.S. Senate voted down a series of gun control amendments back in April, an article in the New Republic magazine boldly declared, “This is How the NRA Ends: A Bigger, Richer, Meaner Gun Control Movement has Arrived.” The article was a long diatribe regurgitating much of the stale tripe and distortion we’ve been hearing from the anti-rights movement for decades and singing the praises of the movement’s new messiah, Mike Bloomberg, the three-term mayor of New York City. Alec MacGillis, the author of the article and a senior editor at the magazine, is, like so many in the media, obviously a true believer in the concept of gun control. His enthusiastic bias oozes from the page as he laments the shameful act of the Senate in rejecting such an eminently fair, reasonable and common-sense bipartisan compromise proposal to make it a federal felony to buy a gun from your neighbor without first submitting to government scrutiny and paying a punitive tax for wishing to exercise your constitutional rights – even if you already own a dozen guns and have a state-issued concealed carry license. His portrait of Bloomberg is one of a dynamic crusader motivated by compassion and imbued with the most powerful of superhero super-powers – money

The biggest fear leftist designers have is an armed society that is capable of fighting off the savage hordes when the last vestiges of civilization collapse. One need only dissect the furor over the Zimmerman verdict to see what fears motivate the social engineers. The savages are out of control, and the failing institutions of urban America fear being bested by armed citizens and vigilante rule. That is especially so for the leftist enablers of urban violence.

I believe you're correct, pallis, which inspires two thoughts:

1.) If I were a totalitarian, I'd quit wasting time, effort, money, and anguish on armed citizens. When was the last time the citizenry rose up in righteous wrath and started shooting? I believe I'd look at the facts and notice the obvious: the citizens most heavily invested in the Second Amendment are those who keep and bear arms on a daily basis with concealed carry permits. Not at all coincidentally, people with permits are less likely to be arrested for felonies than law enforcement officers. I'd have to figure these people do not constitute a social problem, and move on to more urgent matters.

2.) If I were a totalitarian, I'd quit wasting time, effort, money, and anguish on armed citizens, all right, but I might pretend to try to disarm them as a distraction. I'd most probably be considerably more interested in looting every last nickel the citizens have stashed away in retirement accounts than trying to take away their guns. I believe I'd keep my mouth shut about retirement accounts, raise the false topic of guns, and direct the feral government bureaucracy to find out who has exactly how much money set aside where. I'd want to know everything about everybody's bank accounts, retirement accounts, real estate holdings, monthly and weekly earnings, employment history, and the like.

I'm not a totalitarian. I can pretend, at least, to think like one, though I concede that's probably a waste of time. Here, I think, is the real question: are the totalitarians cunning enough to go for the money, or are they so petty-minded, they actually are all worked up about guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens?

This is a hunch, not a fact: if Marxists were very smart or clever or cunning, they'd have noticed a long time ago Marxism inevitably fails. They really could be dumb enough to go on a jihad against all us law-abiding citizens who believe the Second Amendment means exactly what it says.

Blind hatred never sees very far ahead.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.