Michael Bloomberg’s $50 million “Everytown” machine aims to survey 2014 political candidates to nail down how far they‘re willing to renege on that “shall not be infringed” proscription in the Constitution they all swear an oath to uphold, The Washington Post reported Sunday (albeit not putting it in quite those terms). The intent is to get those seeking political power on record in a way competitive with ratings maintained by the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.
The way they seek to do that is through a survey they call “10 questions Americans deserve answers to,” which solicits “Yes” or “No” answers, along with an “Optional Explanation” space, so that gun-grabbers can self-aggrandize and “moderates” can equivocate. I don’t include principled Constitutionalists, because they won’t play Bloomberg’s put-your-head-in-our-noose game in the first place.
The thing is, I agree with Bloomberg on one key point: Americans deserve answers. We deserve to know who the oath-breaking power-seekers are, not that those of us with an eye on the prize don’t already, but this will provide a useful one stop go-to proof that may come in handy at times. And the other thing is, the Bloombergians have invited us to take their test as well, and we can share the results on social media (which, understandable reservations notwithstanding, gun owners ought to be exploiting lest they cede an important information sharing/networking venue to the gun-grabbers).
Here’s the questionnaire, which I encourage you to complete, too. Here’s how I answered, and, since the interactive online survey does not provide any place to add explanations, I’ll give my reasons why here.
Do you agree that we can do more to both keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and protect the rights of responsible, law-abiding people?
I’d answer “No,” even though, intuitively, the answer is “Of course.” That’s because by using the collective “we,” the Bloombergians are setting a trap to where the only way out is to accept their definitions for who prohibited persons should be, including those who have not been found guilty of anything. My consistent position has always been that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian, a point driven home when you consider the three greatest mass murders in our nation’s history, 9/11, the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Happy Land Fire, were all committed without guns by evil persons who proved how deadly they can be if you leave them, literally, to their own devices.
“Dangerous” if defined by Bloomberg & Co. no doubt includes we whom they try to tar as “domestic terrorists” for considering the Second Amendment a last resort impediment to tyranny, and if by “law-abiding” they mean surrendering to gun-grabber disarmament edicts, as in New York City or Washington, D.C., I’d answer “Hell no,” and proudly join the ranks of outlaws.
Do you support requiring all gun buyers to pass a criminal background check?
That one’s easy. No. Again, see my longstanding contention in the first response, as well as my commitment to civil disobedience when the other choice is capitulation to authoritarian thugs. And as Greg Ridgeway, Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice admitted in the Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies, “Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process.”
Yeah, I’ll be registering real quick. Nice try, though.
Do you support a law that would prohibit convicted stalkers, people convicted of abusing a dating partner, and people subject to a domestic violence restraining order against a dating partner from having guns?
Of course not. Again, if they can’t be trusted, sorry, they need to be segregated or controlled until they can be. How deceptive, mixing convicted criminals in with those who are merely accused, that is, those who are innocent until proven guilty (unless the “progressives” succeed in their goal of reversing that). It’s not like anybody’s ever heard of a vengeful or spurned “ex” going all bipolar on someone who managed to extricate him or herself from a toxic relationship. Well, besides William Congreve.
Do you support a law that would require a criminal background check for every gun sold between strangers who meet through an online gun classified website?
I’m pretty sure I already answered that. What part of “No” don’t these people understand? Still, it will be helpful to pull that question to throw in the face of antis blathering on about “buying guns on the internet,” if only to show that their own “leaders” know that doesn’t happen.
Do you support increased funding for the programs that help states submit records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to block severely mentally ill people from buying guns?
Nope. If they’re “severely mentally ill,” they can’t be trusted without a custodian. That’s where the problem needs to be addressed. And besides, there’s a reason terms like “gun nuts” and “crazy” and “paranoids” are thrown about so ... uh ... liberally to disparage Americans who believe in the unalienable right to keep and bear arms.
Do you support a law that would close the “terror gap” and block people listed on the federal government’s terror watch lists from buying guns?
Oh, you mean people like, say, me without a beard, or Three Percenters, or Harry Reid opponents or owners of giant inflatable pink pigs? No wonder the collectivists want out guns –how else can they do away with due process? And I don’t suppose it’s struck any of these geniuses that if a real terrorist tries to buy a gun and gets rejected, you may as well tip him off that he’s been made so that he can escape.
Do you support a federal gun trafficking law that would increase penalties on gun traffickers and make it easier to prosecute and convict them?
Do I support the federal government being able to usurp powers nowhere delegated to it in the Constitution? Would I enter a contract and assign the other party unilateral rights to change the terms and conditions to his advantage and my disadvantage any time he feels like it? Good one!
No, of course I don’t. Besides, some of my best friends are smugglers.
Do you support banning the sale of high capacity ammunition magazines, or magazines that hold more than 10 bullets at a time?
No, but I support defying and resisting anyone who does.
Do you support a law that would allow a prosecutor to bring charges if a gun owner stores a firearm negligently, a minor accesses the gun, and harm results?
On first glance, you’d think this would be a “Yes.” Look again and you’ll see why it’s “No.”
Bloomberg gets to decide what’s “negligent storage”? So if you don’t lock up your safety, separately storing your guns from their ammunition, you’re negligent? If one of those “children” out there turning city streets into hunting grounds breaks in and and gets hold of one of mine, I should be liable? And will “harm” include MILMs who say they’re frightened into a neurotic tizzy by the sight of a gun?
Oh, so I'm "for" crack users passing out, leaving their Tec-9 on the coffee table and going away scot-free when little Johnny blows away little Susie with it? Of course not. As usual, the gun haters are counting on people thinking child endangerment law violators get a free ride unless we pass more edicts. They don’t. But somehow, they never tell anyone that.
Do you oppose national concealed carry reciprocity, which would overturn state laws that determine who may carry a concealed loaded gun in public, and force every state to recognize concealed carry permits from every other state?
This is a tough one for me, since I don’t believe anyone in government has legitimate moral authority to issue permits as a prior restraint against exercising a right in the first damn place, any more than I think they should be able to issue speech or worship permits, or non-self-incrimination licenses, or search and seizure exemption applications, cruel and unusual punishment passes, and the like. But just because Bloomberg demands a “Yes,” I have to enter a qualified “No” here.
That’s it for the 10 questions. Step 11 is another bit of deception, since by asking you to share the questionnaire on social media, don’t expect the Bloombergians to share your results. That will be up to you, but it would be interesting if tons of gun owners did take the survey, answered “No” to everything, and further demonstrated the divide between billionaire-funded AstroTurf vs. grassroots numbers.
My guess is the results would be similar to what MSNBC found out when it asked about carrying guns in public or passing “universal background checks.” And if Team Bloomberg didn’t share honest and complete results, well, that would just be one more bit of evidence as to what hollow frauds they are.
As for politicians taking their poll, the message needs to be anyone taking it who doesn’t answer “No” on every question forfeits gun owner support. Guessing again, my bet is we’ll see plenty who won’t complete it, and the only areas where most do will be “safe” Democrat districts.
As for the rest, earlier this year, Democrats who want to win were trying to quiet the guy down, with “Bill Clinton [asking] Bloomberg to temper his enthusiasm for attacking politicians who oppose stricter gun laws if those politicians happen to be Democrats.”
When even Daily Kos posters conclude “Bloomberg is not helping” and ask “Why stir the hornet’s nest over an issue that does not bring Dems to the polls?” gun owners could do worse than calling out that which savvy leftists would rather people didn’t see.
Some of us might even be inclined to shout “Bring it on!”
If you're a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."
Sure we won Heller and McDonald, but what have the black robes done for us lately? My latest GUNS Magazine "Rights Watch" column is online, and you can read it well before the issue hits the stands. Click here to read "Full Court Press.”
My latest JPFO Alert notes, true to their "Every Day is Opposite Day" natures, “progressive” champions of “common sense gun safety” are upping the physical danger for everyone around them every time they hold one of these stupid publicity stunts. See “Gun ‘Buyback’ Endangers Public in Order to Score Political Points.”
Don’t like the latest Supreme Court ruling? My newest entry in The Shooter’s Log recommends “To Prevent Another ‘Abramski,’ Get in the Fight.”