
United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Let’s be honest: Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is one of the most dangerous threats to our Second Amendment rights. He has a lot of money, and he uses it to push an anti-Second Amendment agenda through. He gets a lot of help from Hollywood and a large chunk of the media. It’s a very formidable alliance.
Sadly, he also gets help from some Second Amendment supporters. Now, I don’t think any Second Amendment supporter wakes up, and asks, “What can I do to help Bloomberg take away our Second Amendment rights?” No, this help is unintentionally provided, often when that Second Amendment supporter is trying to protect our right to keep and bear arms.
Let’s get one thing out of the way: Michael Bloomberg – and those who support him – are in the wrong when it comes to our Second Amendment rights. Their agenda unfairly punishes law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise those rights for the horrific misdeeds of a very small number of people. Furthermore, much of what they propose doesn’t work, and they then demand we give up more of our rights – again in the name of “safety” that will not be provided.
We have a right to be angry with Bloomberg, Schumer, Feinstein, and others who are pushing an anti-Second Amendment agenda. We have a right to be angry that we get labeled as “child killers” or “domestic terrorists” when we rightly point out that banning the AR-15 (or other modern sporting rifles) and imposing “universal background checks” will not solve the problem and would only punish millions of law-abiding citizens. We have a right to take exception to the actions of Andrew Cuomo, who has misused financial regulations to target the NRA.
Anger is a two-edged sword.
While it can motivate people to take action to protect their rights, it can also cause a lot of damage to what you are trying to protect. How many times have you said something in anger that you later regretted? Even when you apologize, there is still damage done that can never quite go away. Furthermore, the person you blew up at may not be willing to listen to you later, when things have calmed down. But it goes beyond the one-on-one interaction.
An angry response, no matter how justified the anger is (and yes, our anger at Bloomberg is justified), often will be used by the media to paint us as irrational. It will be an exhibit used by Bloomberg’s Everytown group for its fundraising. As such, while you might have felt better in the moment, your rant just gave Bloomberg ammo to use against our Second Amendment rights.
Sadly, letting anger get the best of us is not the only way that some Second Amendment supporters are unintentionally aiding Bloomberg. It’s also an inability to find a way to address some situations. For instance, let’s look at the Parkland shooting.
We have long known that mass shooters tend to give off warning signs. The Parkland shooter was one of the most notorious in this regard, with dozens of interactions with local law enforcement, and at least two warnings sent to the FBI. Remember the righteous anger we felt when we learned this after Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel spent so much time smearing the NRA?
Now, it would seem logical, then to figure out how to intervene with an individual like the Parkland shooter – or the Newtown shooter – long before they reached the point where they took a gun and shot up a school (or some other public space). Second Amendment supporters have rightfully condemned the inaction of authorities prior to Parkland.
The problem is, of course, what to do? Some politicians, including some who generally have supported our Second Amendment rights, have proposed or supported “red flag” laws, which would allow for a temporary seizure of firearms by law enforcement under certain circumstances. Now, there are justifiable concerns about how these laws might be applied, including a tragic incident in Maryland, but right now, the truth is that Bloomberg has offered a way to stop mass shooters before they commit their horrific acts. While we can list the flaws and concerns, it is a solution he can present to many Americans, and Second Amendment supporters need to have a better solution as opposed to just saying no.
The cold, hard truth is that you can’t beat something with nothing.
If all Second Amendment supporters do is say no to bad solutions, and they don’t have a good answer when they are asked if they have an alternative, many of the folks Michael Bloomberg’s hoping to recruit as donors and activists will end up backing the push for “red flag” laws, and then sign on to his agenda. One of the big reasons the post-Columbine push for gun control failed was because the NRA promoted Project Exile.
Here’s another piece of cold, hard, truth: Some of these things we have to deal with won’t have easy answers. If the “red flag” laws are a bad idea (and as proposed by Bloomberg, they are), then we need to think of alternatives that will accomplish the same thing – and not infringe on our Second Amendment rights – or additional safeguards.
Defending the Second Amendment is hard work. Second Amendment supporters have to know their facts, they face a hostile media and somehow prepare the next generation. All that is hard enough without giving Bloomberg an unintentional assist.

About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, We Are The Mighty, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

It seems like every comment so far has been negative in response to Harold Hutchison’s article. I understand the emotions this issue creates and the entirely valid concerns that trigger those emotions. Nonetheless, he makes a very valid point. We have to understand and operate in the political and cultural landscape we find ourselves. As a former local elected official, and one who has had to deal with politics on the state and federal level as well as local, I can attest that there is a dramatic difference between strategic victory and compromise. The red flag laws that are generally… Read more »
A RFPO or ERPO is stating that society thinks the person being served with one is mentally ill, but that they are going to ignore it, and instead take his/her property without due process. I would guess that would ignite a fight, and it has already, leaving the citizen dead. These orders are a very bad idea. We need to stop ignoring the mental health issue we have in this country and reopen our institutions.
Red flag laws are s joke. Do you have neighbor who has loud beer parties? And you. complained about it. Do you have another neighbor who has a loud barking dog narking all night? And you complai9about it. Do you have a co-worker. who has a grudge against you? Well, with redflag laws, guess whos going to report you as a danger, terrorist, crazy and mentally unstable! Yeah, thezr people who dont like you and want. to get even with you. Cut someone off in traffic and they are pissed, they’ll copy down your license plate number and call the… Read more »
Sometimes the answer is we are doing as much as we can without infringing on people’s rights. If they are legally allowed to own a gun it is very difficult to near impossible to predict the next mass shooter. Unless they make their intentions known or are very sloppy or are just plain criminals a future mass shooter looks like anyone else. So until we get real psychics we need to enforce the laws we have and get rid of gun free zones. There needs to be reasonable expectations of the amount of crimes and homicides that can be stopped… Read more »
Seems like, more than a few, commenters missed the point of this article and jumped right into bashing the writer. You fools, that is exactly what this article is trying to highlight, that only helps bloomberg divide and conquer. In-fighting among 2A groups and organizations and each other only helps the other side. Not offering better solutions to an issue only helps the other side. Repealing the NFA 1934 is not the issue on the table. Stopping future mass shooters is, so given today’s resources, let’s get together and support the solutions that don’t infringe on our rights. Get behind… Read more »
WE HAVE THE ANSWER and have had it since this nation began. The right to keep AND BEAR arms Shall NOT be Infringed! This right has been infringed upon since 1934 and if you look at where these mass shootings are taking place it is where the right to bear arms is being infringed upon. If everyone had the ability to bear arms to defend and protect themselves with any “arms” that they themselves deem necessary, then these “mass shooters” wouldn’t get very far, if at all, before the threat would be mitigated. And it would no longer be a… Read more »
Harold, you should really take these comments to heart and go some place quiet and think about them. You are not helping our cause.
Just the look of him spells snowflake. Get off Ammoland, Harry, and go serve Bloomboig directly. Your mere suggestion of Red Flag alternative belies your own personal gun-grabbing agenda.
Answer his question Mr. Hutchinson.
The whole time I was reading this article I was thinking this guy is exactly what the anti gun people want to hear. He is blaming us for not being willing to give up our God given rights and find a solution to the snowflake’s problem. The main concern here is that if we did come up with an idea to fix their encroachment on our rights that would only leave them to find more ways to take our guns. Unconstitutional is Unconstitutional and is a violation of all rights and principles as in red flag laws. We have no… Read more »