Did You Accidentally Help Bloomberg Today?

Michael Bloomberg
Did You Accidentally Help Bloomberg Today?

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.


Harold Hu, chison

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.

  • 40 thoughts on “Did You Accidentally Help Bloomberg Today?

    1. 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.

    2. 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 police and say you are acting crazy and waving a gun.

    3. 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 in a free society without taking those freedoms from the people.

      1. @Repo, With all due respect. “… legally allowed to own a gun …” Allowed by whom? There is no allowed in the Second Amendment. Gun ownership is not a benefit granted by government. I think that you mean, If they are exercising their right to own a gun…”

    4. 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 those that are offering that solution and stop attacking each other for having different opinions of those solutions!

      1. What he is highlighting Douglas is that he has ignored any attempts to question him on fixing the NRA. Harold has penned over a half dozen articles, all ignoring any grievances brought up. He is strictly a shill and propagandist.

        We have offered, and offered, and offered solutions to Harold that will get him what he wants, support for the NRA. He has chosen to ignore those solutions and instead blame us while trying to accuse us of being coconspirators of Bloomberg.

        We well not join in and support Harold or the NRA until they fix the problems we have outlined. Insulting us and trying to shame us to shut up and sit down and be good little sheep is not going to get us to cooperate with you. That is the very thing you tried to pull on me before.

        FIX THE NRA. Then we can talk after, but until then we will not be rejoining them. If you have a problem with that, the GOA has open doors you are welcome to walk into.

    5. 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 “mass” shooting (except for maybe the masses shooting back at the threat) The large government pushing politicians (Democrats and Republicans on both sides) don’t like that answer provided by our Founding Fathers because they would no longer have power and control over the masses.

      1. All American.

        That’s too much common sense. You cant expect the people talking about how us lowly peons “don’t understand the politics involved” to allow that to slide.

        Good post man.

    6. 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.

    7. 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 reason to find a “common ground” for invasion of our rights. Red flag laws are a giant step toward communism and a dictator. This is the point where our society will fail or a war will take place.

      1. So just to understand your argument there is no circumstance where there should be any government intervention. If a student at your son or daughter’s school has access to a weapon and is displaying psychotic behavior and ranting on social media that he will seek revenge for the bullying at school you do nothing. If a resident of your town is a legal gun owner, never had a law enforcement contact but is communicating with jihadi groups and appears to becoming more radicalized what do you do. We all want to be strict constitutional constructionists but the government has always had the ability to suspend constitutional rights if they deem there is an overriding governmental interest such as the security of a correctional institution. Do inmates have 4th amendment rights? Obviously not as there cells, cavities and all but legal phone calls are subject to search anytime, any place. Same is true of parolees.

        1. To use your example, inmates, how did they come to that lot in life? They arrived there because they had been convicted of a crime resulting in their incarceration. They had their day in court and were found in violation of the law. Now as to red flag laws. My question is how do these people confiscating the guns know that they got all of the persons guns? If the person is deemed that much of a risk then that person should be removed from the public, not their guns. But, that would be putting the blame on the person and not the guns wouldn’t it. It doesn’t fit the liberal’s narrative.

    8. One only needs to look at the changing demographics in our nation to know that our 2nd amendment rights will be eroded eventually even if it is done state by state. Just look at the list of authorized guns allowed in the state of California. Red flag laws are an inevitability so we need to insure that the innocent gun owner isn’t the victim of over reach. They should be written in a way that identifies discernible concerns and since subjectivity will always be part of this practice a temporary restraining order must be given priority for a speedy hearing to justify any deprivation. This cannot be a vehicle for an angry ex-partner to lash out and harm a gun owner but if you don’t capitulate on reasonable interventions with people like the ones who committed Parkland, Sandy Hook, Aurora etc. then that changing demographic will never take your cogent arguments seriously.

        1. Democrats have been getting away with completely ignoring the US Constitution for years. They violate natural rights and receive no punishment or resistance.
          Demographics are an issue because Hispanics, who will become a majority in the USA, have been voting 70% Democrat and 30% Republican for many decades. Unless we can convince more Hispanics to vote Republican, Democrats will have complete and permanent control of this country forever.

          At this point, secession is the best way to protect the natural rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Republicans need to do this before they lose every state legislature in the country.

      1. Ever hear of “SWATting”?
        That is the deliberate misuse of a system put in place for “security” that has resulted in innocents being killed when the coppers show up en masse, all tactical and such, and the citizen, armed or not, responds appropriately to what he perceives is an evil attack.
        What we never hear about are the CONSEQUENCES visitred upon the caller making the false claims. And HEREIN lies the issue…..

        within our society we have settled for the practice of removing consequences from far too many who do harm, whilst maintaining life-shattering consequences for those to do certain things that harm no one.

        SWATters never seem to face any JUSTICE that even distantly approaches punishment or consequences for their misuse, wilful and deliberate, or a system put in place for public security. WHen an innocent is dead as a result of the prank call, the caller MUST face charges of felony manslaughter, for the victim, the innocent citizen, is every bit as dead as if the faux caller had taken the gun the policemen used and shot the one killed. I drive drunk anad kill someone, I face charges of felony manslaughter, at the least.
        And WHY do we have so many “crimes” that can put a man in prison for years, that harm no one? SO WHAT if I want to smoke a joint in a state where it is deemed “illegal”? WHO is harmed? Yet we wareshouse some twenty millions at a cost of some $40 to $80K per year <eanwhile anyone can call in a claim that will roll a SWAT team, and once they roll, there WILL be trouble for someone, guilty or not, most times.Same has, and WILL, happen with red flag laws.

        You mention the Parkland murderer and the FACT there were "warning signs" well in advance of his actions. Yes… but let's put the blame for the kid's actions where a good part of it belongs. That dirtbag had committed at least FOUR acts in the two years prior to the shoot-em-up that, had any of US done those things, would have had us behind bars and a report filed with NICS that would render us "prohibited persons" in regards possession of arms. Three felony actions, and one gross misdemeanour domestic violence charge that SHOULD also have been filed, another disqualifying event.

        WHAT CONSEQUENCES have ever befallen those who SHOULD have charged him with those crimes, and did not? THEY are, in law, accessories to the 17 murders, as they REFUSED to take the lawfully mandated action that would have rendered this punk unable to poissess arms.

        And what about the School Resource Officer who WATCHED him come on campus, KNEW he was not to be there, KNEW he wass trouble on two legs, SAW and IDENTIFIED his RIFLE BAG, continued to WATCH as he entered the building, and DID NOTHING!!??!!????
        The very ones tasked with keeoing that school facility secure, stood idly and silenly by as the murderer walked on campus, with hisRIFLE BAG, entered a building, and did… NOTHING.

        And the hooh hahs we put in office to "keep us safe" (that is NOT their job…..) want to impose these "RRed Flag Laws" on we who have never done anything?

        Washington State imposed that piece of dung on their citizens last year. The first use of it was against a man,a clean record, who while certainly acting strangely, provided NO BASIS for believeing he posed a danger to anyone……. HIS life has been destroyed by the individuals who complained about him. They seized all his guns, seized him, and now he must, to get his priperty back, spend money he dies not have. And while he was in custody other thigns hapened to him that cost him dearly. WHY? Someone was "uncomfortable" that he had a gun IN PUBLIC……. so what? Of course, it WAS, by chance, in a rather hoity toity rea of Seattle, the city with more dogs than children, and even fewer guns than children…….

    9. 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 being proposed right now are clearly unconstitutional, but the reality is they have a very good chance of passing unless better thought out, better crafted and supported alternatives are put on the table. And, yes, that’s hard work.

      1. Red flag laws are being passed not because of a lack of an alternative, but because of a complete surrender on basic principles. Red flag laws are based on the concept that the tool is the problem, not the person. Take away the tool and the person won’t be a danger to the public or himself anymore. The NRA leadership apparently agrees with that, thus agrees with the core concept of gun control. Chris Cox’s statement on red flag laws can’t be more clear on that. The only alternative is to abandon that core concept of gun control, thus abandoning the support for these “shoot grandpa in the face” laws.

      2. no, those who make the laws for the rest of us MUST make them constent with the Constitutoin AS WRITTEN. And these Red Flag laws are, to be blunt, NOT.

        Dont you sit there at your keyboard and sat “clearly ubcionstitutoinsl” and foillow immediately with “but the realtiy is….”.

        NO The REALITY is all laws MUST be in compliance with the Constitution.,, until the Constitution is changed. And DieFie’s proposed law banning “assault weapons” is UNconstitutoinal. SHE admits it is contrary to the Second Article of Ammndment. RIGHT THERE she violates her oath of office.. felony perjury. WHO will bell THAT snarly pestilential alley cat?

    10. taquiyya-bama politicians are not concerned about restricting criminals, their natural constituents. disarming the law-abiding is their goal. they prefer defenseless victims, see government-sponsored baby-murdering.

    11. Why do “we need to think of alternatives that will accomplish the same thing”? I don’t believe that we NEED to come up with anything, especially anything that is a “compromise” of our 2A rights. Even implying that “we need to do anything” also implies that “they” have some authority to constitutionally infringe our 2A rights. Here’s an idea though – Mothers against Drunk Drivers were successful because they went after the drivers. They didn’t go after the alcohol, they didn’t go after the vehicles. These leftists are trying to disarm the country, and they are using this “need” as an excuse to do that. They don’t see criminals as a threat to themselves. The police and armed bodyguards already provide our political and other self-important elites sufficient protection from criminals and crazies. It is the armed citizen that the elitists see as a threat to themselves, as well they should. That’s why the 2A exists. To provide a means to prevent elitists and pseudo-aristocracy leftists and wealthy Hollywood circus monkeys from becoming the all-controlling kings of America. The leftist elites and their MSM propagandists are going to continue to use every lie and reality-twist to disarm the citizenry of this country. Any compromise that allows the slightest infringement of the 2A is just another chip in the wall that protects us from these pseudo-aristocrats and their visions of an elitist future. Here’s an “alternative” solution: Stop electing elitists, stop funding their armed body guards with our tax dollars, start forcing them to live by the same rules and controls that they constantly seek to impose on the “commoners” in this country. Failure to do that will eventually result in the “commoners” becoming the “peasantry” for these elitist wannabe future rulers.

    12. If it’s unconstitutional “No” is the only answer we need! And for gun owners to accept these red flag laws because we are “doing something” have accepted the destruction of not only our 2nd Amendment rights, but due process and the Bill of Rights and it is disgusting. From my cold dead hands. Just like the patriot in MD. We must fight these laws, Bloomberg, De Blazio. Soros and all the other traitors to this country who are trying to disarm the populace. Because they know you can not implement full blown Socialism and or Communism with an armed populace. That’s what this is really all about. Wake gun owners and America.

    13. It just seems to me that we do not need these “Red Flags”, we just need agencies to do their damned jobs. Broward County social services, Broward County sheriffs Department and most of all the damned FBI. They all sat around with their proverbial finger where the sun don’t shine. The Marjory Stoneman incident is but one example Red Flags won’t work, many will be hurt or killed. Many false claims will lead to much harm as the case in Maryland points out. I say again, local and federal agencies, just do your damned job. I’m not saying all will be ok but the falsehoods of Red Flags will be reduced. Just sayin’.

    14. Yes, Mrs. Hutchison, you are helping Mr. Bloomberg today! The recent support by the NRA of red flag laws and of the bump stock ban is a major shift in policy, agreeing with Mr. Bloomberg that the tool is the problem and not the person. You are destroying you own argument against gun control. The NRA has gone “full retard”!

      There is simply no need for Minority Report laws that violate constitutional rights. Is there ever? Crime in the US, including violent crime, has been on a long term downward trend. The recent uptick in mass shootings is a social phenomenon driven by the media, by mental health issues and by a society that only cares afterwards.

      Not a single mass shooting would have been prevented by a red flag law. In Parkland, obvious, multiple red flags were outright ignored and existing mechanisms were not used. In Las Vegas, we still do not know what exactly happened. What we do know is that the shooter had the means to fly an airplane into the crowd, so a red flag law does not apply. The shooter had also the means to legally acquire fully automatic firearms, so the bump stock ban does not apply. We had a number of past shootings, like in Texas and the two at VA Tech, where the shooter would have been a prohibited person, but relevant information was never entered into the background check system.

      Lastly, the vast amount of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones, yet the NRA seems to have completely given up to fight them. President Trump can eliminate many of the federal gun-free zones with a stroke of a pen, by suspending enforcement. Many Republican-controlled state legislatures can remove state-level gun-free zones. The NRA is noticeably absent in this fight!

      Your attempt to paint those that criticize the NRA on their anti-gun stance as supporters of Bloomberg is an epic fail! Keep ’em coming, though. Keep writing these shill articles, as they just cement the view that the NRA is broken and needs to be reformed with new leadership.

      PS: Does that whole “letting anger get the best of us” also apply to Angry Dana? LOL!

    15. Mr Hutchison, your advice sounds nice but you offer no concrete suggestions how to accomplish our goals and destroy the encroachment of Democrat-Socialists on our Civil Rights. Preaching to people who are wronged by Bloomberg, ONLY that they must stifle their anger seems idealistly naive at best and, at worst, a risky way to alienate or give them a reason to sit on the sidelines. Until you can offer solid and productive ways for law-abiding citizens to channel their anger in the pursuit of liberty and freedom, your musings are only half done.

      1. 1776 Patriot: Excellent points. One other phenomenon I’ve recently observed is law abiding gun owners deliberately disobeying the law. The recently enacted New Jersey “high capacity” magazine ban, which a violation of is a felony, to date has zero compliance. New York’s SAFE Act has a compliance rate estimated at 7%. California’s registration scheme has yielded similar results and there are other examples.

        This beginning trend of civil disobedience has occurred in this country once before, on a massive scale, during Prohibition but it has also happened in other countries and over far more serious issues, witness France today.

        If the leaders of the countries involved fail to understand that their citizens fear them and criminals more than they do the penalties of the laws enacted it usually results in one of two outcomes, civil war with a total overthrow of the government or complete anarchy where the principles of the government are completely lost.

        We’re coming dangerously close to one or the other. The Liberals, in their zeal for firearms laws and total control over citizens (make no mistake that’s what this is about) have accelerated this process because they feel emboldened by the likes of their “young gun” radicals like Alexandria Ocasio Cortes and her cadre of wannbe Socialists.

        The next four years may be the “fork in the road” time for this country, when we finally reach that point where we can’t turn back. I hope not.

    16. No thanks. More guns, more training, more shooting sports, more of all 3 in everyday life is the only thing that will help any of this. We have a natural right as a living thing to protect our life and liberty from those who seek to take it.

    17. While advising 2A supporters need to offer alternatives to “red flag” proposals, the writer offered no alternatives to “red flag” proposals. Arrest and jail everybody that might commit a crime in the next 30/60/90 days as a way to reduce crime. What a great idea.

      1. Herb T, simply making of a threat of physical harm gives cause for arrest. Simple removal of locatable firearms from a threating person and leaving that person free does not stop the threat. ERPOs disregards many Constitutional safe guards and apparently only targets those suspected of possession of firearms. This is an extreme risk threat to all of us.

    18. The “Red Flag Laws” as proposed by a number of law makers across the United States are a way to circumvent the Constitution of the United States and the Second Amendment.
      These laws will require a person accused, repeat ACCUSED, not tried, not convicted of a crime, just accused of being a danger to himself or others to surrender his firearms to the police. He/she will then have to hire a lawyer to go to court and prove that he/she is not a threat to anyone at all. This costs time and money that the average person just does not have.
      It’s what the anti-gunners want, to “tie you up” in the daunting task of regaining your firearms and just “surrendering” to their whims.
      Remember, the majority of people spearheading these attacks against YOUR Rights have armed security guards.

      When Seconds Count, The Police Are Only Minutes Away!

      1. NO, Mr. Hutchison, we will NOT make the Bloomburg/Pelosi/Everytown fiasco feel justified by offering ANYTHING.
        You are so much like the current crop of ‘helpless’, you want everyone to feel oh-so-good about themselves. Well, Mr Naive Snowflake, the 2nd Amendment is clear, my RIGHTS are clear, why would I consider any options other than saying NO! to these elite socialists???
        How about deriding the very folks who are responsible and paid to prevent some of this stuff. How about deriding the lying socialist media we protect with the 1st amendment???? Either hold those accountable for nipping a problem in the bud, or allow me to defend myself when that problem is allowed and encouraged to grow.
        Are you a shill, or just naive???

    Leave a Comment 40 Comments