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 »
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… Read more »
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… 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 »
@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…”
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 »
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… 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 »
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.
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.
Bloomberg says if He catches us drinking 64 ounce Sodas he’ll have us arrested for possession of plastic straws
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 »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Fifty years ago I watched a made for TV movie. It has stuck with me all this time. For those who haven’t seen it, I recommend it. For those that haven’t watched in a while, watch it again. The movie is: “Shadow On The Land”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxXam7gK3Jo
I am long done with “niceties”. I AM ANGRY and will fight tooth and nail and will NOT comply with any new gun laws.
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… Read more »
I don’t give a s**t about what any demographics d-sucker thinks/feels or says. US Constitution?
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.
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Beautifully stated with very cogent facts.
Thank you.
you will not need the second amendment until they come to take it away 😉
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.
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… Read more »
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.
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.
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.
Jinx.
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… Read more »
Shilling once again, at least you are consistent.
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… Read more »