Gun Grabbing Nanny Bloomberg & MAIG At It Again

Per the NYT:

The commercial is an unambiguous appeal to gun owners: a middle-aged hunter, rifle in hand, vows that he will fight to protect the Second Amendment.The commercial is an unambiguous appeal to gun owners: a middle-aged hunter, rifle in hand, vows that he will fight to protect the Second Amendment But in a sensible, father-of-the-house tone, he also urges voters to support comprehensive background checks, “so criminals and the dangerously mentally ill can’t buy guns.”

The man behind the advertisement is not known for his kinship with the gun crowd: Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, the nation’s fiercest advocate of restrictions on firearms since the December rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Determined to persuade Congress to act in response to that shooting, Mr. Bloomberg on Monday will begin bankrolling a $12 million national advertising campaign that focuses on senators who he believes might be persuaded to support a pending package of federal regulations to curb gun violence. The ads, in 13 states, will blanket those senators’ districts during an Easter Congressional recess that is to be followed by debate over the legislation.

It goes without saying that authoritarian scumbags like Michael Bloomberg think they know better than we do. Given his propensity for going after large sodas and salt, there’s no level of micromanagement he won’t stoop to. On Meet The Press, to fellow anti-gun left-wing stool-pigeon David Gregory, he said:

“[W]hile I think we are going to win this [background checks], celebrating in advance isn’t the right thing to do. We’ve got to go out, we’ve got a lot of work ahead of us. … I don’t think we should give up on the assault weapons ban. But clearly, it is a more difficult issue for a lot of people. And I don’t know that that reflects the N.R.A.’s power. It may be just that people have different views about assault weapons than they do about background checks. … I think I have a responsibility, and I think you and all of your viewers have responsibilities, to try to make this country safer for our families and for each other. And if I can do that by spending some money and taking the NRA from being the only voice to being one of the voices, … then I think my money would be well spent … If 90% of the public want something, and their representatives vote against that, common sense says, they are going to have a price to pay for that.”

Bring it on. We’ll make it our business to punish you and your friends, Nanny.

Obama uses radio address to push anti-gun oppression…

So, Dear Leader used his weekly radio address to push abrogration of our Second Amendment-protected civil rights. He wants an ‘assault weapons’ (whatever that means) ban, a limit on magazine size, and of course, a national background check system. Yes, the same bill that the odious Jim Moran and the tools of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (talk about a misnomer!) pushed at the recent ‘gun violence forum’ here in Arlington.

“These ideas shouldn’t be controversial — they’re common sense,” Obama said. “They’re supported by a majority of the American people. And I urge the Senate and the House to give each of them a vote.”…  “Right now, we have a real chance to reduce gun violence in America, and prevent the very worst violence,” he said. “We have a unique opportunity to reaffirm our tradition of responsible gun ownership, and also do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or people with a severe mental illness. We’ve made progress over the last three months, but we’re not there yet. And in the weeks ahead, I hope members of Congress will join me in finishing the job — for our communities and, most importantly, for our kids.”

He keeps pointing out polls, as if a majority of uninformed citizens being in favor of such abrogation makes it right or lawful. Newsflash, Zero, these are the kinds of laws we, those who actually value our rights don’t plan to comply with. That’s why we have a Constitutional republic. It’s a check on unbridled majorities seeking to do harm to or oppress minorities. The left, and most ‘moderate’ sheep, seem not to grasp this concept (to be fair, neither do the religious ‘conservatives’ on the right) and think that 50% + 1 is a mandate to shred the Constitution. I can’t stress enough how terrifying that is. These people will not be stopped until the American people become educated on these issues, their agenda is exposed, and it’s made plain that gun owners will directly resist, unfortunately. Sack up, people. It may get ugly.

States beginning to oppose the gun-grabbers in DC directly en masse

That’s what I’m talking about. Remind them of the 10th Amendment the hard way.

And Rep. Carolyn Maloney is still an idiot:

But the debate hinges on Congress. There are now around 50 bills related to gun control pending in the House and Senate.

Among them is legislation offered by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), meant to crack down on gun trafficking. The bill targets “straw buyers,” who purchase firearms with the intent of delivering them to criminal interests. “Getting the guns out of the hands of the wrong people is an important goal,” Maloney said. She said gun control advocates in Congress were merely proposing minimum standards. “States can legislate what they want,” she said, but would ultimately have to follow federal gun laws.

WRONG… we have a constitutional republic with a federal government. Try again.

And of course, Dianne Feinstein never fails to demonstrate her utter ridiculosity:

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s controversial assault weapons ban, setting the stage for consideration by the full Senate.The California Democrat said the measure would “dry up” the supply of military-style weapons readily available to the public.“These weapons are being used by grievance killers, the mentally unstable and others to kill significant numbers of people in our malls, our theaters, our workplaces and our schools,” Feinstein said.

Are you kidding me? Semi-automatic rifles are used in a SMALL percentage of gun murders! Also, stop using the murders of George Moscone and Harvey Milk as an argument against “assault weapons.” THEY WERE KILLED WITH A .38 REVOLVER! Please, shut up and retire, you old bat.

Comcast’s Gun-Free Zone Decision NOT an Infringement on Constitutional Rights!

Folks, let’s get over ourselves! If we as gun owners ardently defend our right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment, we need to ardently defend others’ rights as well – rights that when exercised, may give us heartburn. Freedom is freedom, and we need to understand and respect it, whether we agree with the way it is exercised or not.

Example:

“Comcast Spotlight has decided it will not accept new advertising for firearms or weapons moving forward,” the company said in a statement.

[...]

This month, Comcast acquired NBC Universal in a $16.7 billion deal reported by Media Decoder.

NBC Universal had a longstanding policy against accepting advertisements related to guns, according to a report from an ABC affiliate in Michigan.

I don’t like this policy. It’s ridiculous and reactionary, and I passionately disagree with it.

However, that said… I also disagree with some people’s contention that Comcast’s refusal to accept new firearms advertising is somehow an infringement on gun owners’ constitutional rights.

“There’s no reason why we can’t promote what we believe in and something that’s guaranteed under the Second Amendment.”

[...]

Other gun shop owners and Second Amendment supporters are outraged. One, in the ABC report, called Comcast’s blacklisting of gun advertisements a “direct infringement on our constitutional rights.”

Let’s grow up, people!

The Constitution protects our rights from government infringement, NOT from others’ refusal to deal with us in a free market. The Constitution is a limit on government powers, not on the right of other free entities to do business or not do business with us.

Yes, we can promote what we believe in.  No one says we can’t.  Find a media company that will accept your advertising dollars. Build your own media outlet and advertise away. No one is taking your right to advertise away.  But if you try and FORCE a company to deal with you, and accept your business despite its desire not to, you are no better than the petty, pathetic tyrants who want to force private companies to provide services they may be morally opposed to under… say… ObamaCare.

Get the picture?

If we desire true freedom, we need to understand and accept the fact that not all entities will want to do business with us, and they have every right to say, “No!”

This is not an infringement on your Constitutional rights. There is no right to force someone to deal with you against their will.

You have every right to speak out, to promote your products and to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. But there is no constitutional requirement for others to provide you with a microphone, an advertising medium or a gun, for that matter. No one is required to do business with you if they are morally opposed to your business practices or your products, for that matter.

We may find Comcast’s refusal repugnant, but it is their right to decline doing business with firearms companies, and it is your right to take your business to a media outlet that wants to deal with you.

Or are you really going to claim that this gun shop owner should be forced to do business with everyone, even if he morally opposes the potential customer’s views?

 

Take Your Business Elsewhere

I’m not a big fan of chicken, but I will admit to having had a weakness for Buffalo Wild Wings. I love the sauce selection, and their buffalo chips are a serious guilty pleasure.

When we lived in Winchester, I used to open carry to B-dubs, and no one had a problem with it. There were no signs posted banning firearms, and we had a great time eating and playing trivia. It was one of my favorite places.

Not any longer.

It’s unfortunate, but it seems the restaurant has banned firearms on its premises. Law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights are no longer welcome there.

Like the author of the above-linked piece, I’m sad the restaurant made this decision. I hate to take my business elsewhere, but that is exactly what I will do.

My rights are more important to me than BWW’s chicken wings and buffalo chips, and I will let BWW know about my decision and the reason for it.

I understand that living here in Arlington, not a whole lot of folks will follow my example. I realize that in this blue commie-topia there aren’t enough gun owners to make a difference in the business of Buffalo Wild Wings. They will operate as usual, and taking my business elsewhere won’t make a difference.

In a perfect world, scores of gun owners would simply boycott Buffalo Wild Wings and have a massive impact on their business. But this is not a perfect world, and we need to remember that BWW has every right to ban anything its management seems right on its premises. It is their restaurant. It is their property. It is their right.

And maybe right now there aren’t enough gun owners out here to make a difference, but the least we can do is ensure our money goes to an establishment that respects our rights.

The least we can do is spend our money in a place that doesn’t seek to make us defenseless on its premises.

And the least we can do is assert our rights in the face of those who refuse to acknowledge we have any.

So, yes. Buffalo Wild Wings has every right to ban guns on its premises. And yes, you have every right to take your business elsewhere and let them know why.

But unlike he entitled asstards who pressured unethical legislators to prevent Chick-Fil-A from opening restaurants in leftist holes like Chicago, Boston and San Francisco, we gun owners understand the meaning of property rights and free markets, and we respect them. We don’t attempt to interfere with the business, rudely berate its employees or use political pressure to destroy it.

Because unlike people who have no respect for the right to self defense, we have respect for property and the property owner’s decisions regarding said property.

We respect rights. They destroy them.

As for me and Rob, I’m sure the Greene Turtle two doors down will appreciate our business.