Showing posts with label Michael Bloomberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Bloomberg. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

New polls show Bernie Sanders in double-digit lead

Bernie Sanders is up 9% in the polls to 31% nationally with Bloomberg second at 19%, then Biden 15%, Warren 12%, Klobuchar 9% and so on in the new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll. It is this poll that qualifies Bloomberg for the Nevada debates, which should determine his competition with Bernie going forward. There are two problems here: the Bern must increase his base to win this election; Bloomberg must address the accusations of women’s allegations of profane, sexist comments. READ MORE...

I am not talking about the Primary when it comes to Bernie, he can probably win that with his base due to the "fragmented" support of other candidates, according to Politico. Here's the scenario...
"While few expect that Sanders can carry more than a third of the vote in Nevada, nearly everyone believes that will be enough to win in a field where the moderate vote remains splintered. It is becoming a source of celebration for Sanders' supporters and an urgent problem for those who want to prevent him from claiming the nomination."
The Washington Post reports the Vermont Senator "is powered by a loyal base, but results in Iowa and New Hampshire show the movement has limits." Here's the thinking...
"A core base of young, liberal and working-class voters inspired by the Vermont senator's calls for a political revolution powered the self-described democratic socialist to an effective tie atop the Iowa caucuses and an outright win in this week's New Hampshire primary.

"Yet the early returns show that Sanders's loyal army represents a limited slice of the party, accounting for just over a quarter of the vote in each of the first two states. And one of the central premises of his campaign — that it is built to activate legions of new voters and spur record turnout among young people — has not been realized."
And that isn't good for the Bern. But the accusations of Bloomberg's conduct are also not good, and the two questions remain if Bernie can get his act together and widen his support outside the far-left and if Bloomberg can clear up this mess he has created. Something must happen, because, without these two, Democrats are way up the creek without the paddle. This would mean four more years of Donald Trump and a vast number of Americans don't want that, including some Republicans.

There is one more angle when it comes to Michael Bloomberg's candidacy, his close connection to Wall Street, which, both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are fighting against. But CNN says "the billionaire is nonetheless vowing to crack down on the financial industry." Some might say that the self-made billionaire would be reluctant to go against his former cronies but look at the gun control issue. He is a leader with his Everytown for Gun Safety group.

And, that may not be exactly apples and apples, but it does show that Bloomberg is willing to buck the system and do the right thing. His attacks on Donald Trump so far have been right on and seem to be getting under the Oval Office lunatic's skin, which is just more heat to drive Trump over the edge. As I said earlier, these two (Bernie and Bloomberg) are a must for the Dems in November when it comes to beating the White House maniac. Nevada debate February 19, on NBC/MSNBC.

Monday, February 17, 2020

Mike Bloomberg-Hillary Clinton: Could they beat Trump?

Bloomberg - Clinton

This pair may be proven research, but it looks to me like a train wreck going somewhere to happen. When you Google "Hillary Haters," you get 7.4 million hits. But, when you do the same with supporters, you get 22.6 million, so maybe I am wrong. My initial reaction comes from blogging during the 2016 election, seeing the ire from so many commenters and across the board when it comes to profiles. But Bloomberg's research team does appear to have credibility.

On the other hand, RealClearPolitics says, "Bloomberg May Be What Democrats Need." RCP continues that the 77-year-old, former Republican, billionaire is probably not what the Dems want, at least Progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The Bern does say that Mike Bloomberg is trying to buy the election, which, if you look at the mechanics of Bloomberg using his money only to fund his campaign, might vaguely qualify for the accusation.

RCP considers Buttigieg and Klobuchar, but lacking the experience and a strong following, rules them out. Democrats need Bloomberg for four reasons...
"First, the former New York mayor has done real things. Building a multibillion-dollar business from scratch and ably managing New York City for 12 years are concrete accomplishments. Making speeches and sitting in committee hearings – the core tasks of being in Congress – are no match for what Bloomberg has done."
"Second, Bloomberg is not a left-wing ideologue."
"Third, competence. Bloomberg knows how to make things run."
"Fourth, Bloomberg guarantees a first-class campaign. He can fund the entire general election out of petty cash. Two billion? Three billion? Four billion?"
 With the favored candidate, Joe Biden, in a downward spiral, recoiling from being originally "available, acceptable and electable," here's the latest scenario...
"a recent Quinnipiac poll shows his once-powerful support among black and moderate Democrats nationally has taken a tumble since Iowa."
Warren is fairing no better, and all this considering Bloomberg skipped campaigning in the first four states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The experts thought he was crazy, but turns out he made a smart strategic move with the demise of Biden. The Buttigieg/Klobuchar profiles are fairly similar and I can see their followers going to Bloomberg, should they drop out of the race. But here's a possible obstacle that could throw everything into chaos.

Based on a recent release, Michael Bloomberg may be considering the selection of Hillary Clinton as a running mate. Now that may show strength to his strategists, but I can see it as pissing off Klobuchar and Buttigieg, if, in fact, as I have surmised earlier, each is now not running for president, rather, for vice president. Depending on how the two react, they could stay in the race, which, of course would siphon votes from Bloomberg.

As far as electability goes...
"On November electability, which was Biden’s calling card, Bloomberg is now doing better than other Democrats. The most recent Quinnipiac poll places Bloomberg ahead of Trump by a sizable nine percentage points. The latest Fox News poll has Bloomberg beating the White House occupant by eight points. Even polls that show narrower Democratic margins place Bloomberg in a relatively strong position for November."
On the Progressive side, haven't seen any recent polls for the Bern against T-rump, but in the past Sanders has been in the lead. For what it's worth the BBC says, "US election 2020: Could it be Bernie Sanders v Donald Trump?" This should be a very interesting fall.   READ MORE...

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

Can Michael Bloomberg push Trump over the edge with his campaign ads touting the Oval Office lunatic's business failures?

I have spoken in several of my posts how well-known psychiatrists keep coming to the conclusion that Donald Trump is mentally unbalanced to the extent he shouldn't be running this country. These esteemed medical professionals, even though they have not personally examined the Oval Office lunatic, are fully confident their diagnoses are right on target. Their reasoning, there is plenty of his daily bizarre rhetoric in the media to pinpoint T-rump's problems.  

Vanity Fair asked the question recently, "WILL NEW IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE PUSH TRUMP OVER THE EDGE?" It didn't. And now some are even talking about the possibility he has some built in resiliency that is keeping him from the men in the white coats, which many of us have felt would have been at the White House long before now. Maybe Michael Bloomberg has found the answer, a massive ad campaign attacking Trump's business failures.

There are many, as you can see in the above illustration. Hillary Clinton had a similar strategy in 2016 calling out...
"Trump’s tendency toward bankruptcy, highlighting every opportunity Trump had to increase his father’s money for a higher profit. But investment after another failed, as Trump was forced to file for bankruptcy six times for five different companies."
Bloomberg is among the top 10 richest people in the United States. Trump ranks 275th. That alone must piss Trump off every day. The election would be billionaire against quasi billionaire. Here's the scenario...
"Thus far, Bloomberg’s challenges to Trump has prompted Twitter meltdowns, rally rants and name-calling in interviews. If Bloomberg manages to take Trump down, mentally and emotionally, with ads targeting the president’s failed businesses and inability to make the 'deals' he promised, it could prompt the next level of a knockdown drag-out fight."
Vanity Fair also says Bloomberg's tactics are working when Trump reduces himself, again, to use the nicknaming insult, calling the former New York city Mayor, “little Michael Bloomberg,” instead of countering with issues of substance. And that is the big problem in this matter, Donald Trump has no, zilch, nada. To depict just how close the White House maniac is to the brink, on February 6, RawStory posted this headline:
  • "Trump just had a weapons-grade crazy post-impeachment tantrum — here are the most insane moments"
The tirade included...
"attacks on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), and also featured some bizarre off-the-cuff ramblings about his Republican allies."
Here is one of his off-the-wall comments that seems to confirm the psychiatrists' belief that Donald Trump is coming off the spool...
"Trump says that Rep. Steve Scalise’s (R-LA) wife really loves him because she was visibly upset after he got shot."
What the hell has this to do with the subject at hand??? But RawStory sort of clarifies...
"For unexplained reasons, the president gave a recap of the 2017 shooting at a congressional softball game practice that put Scalise in the hospital. Trump said he was impressed at how emotional his wife, Jennifer Scalise, got when visiting him in the hospital."
That's all well and good, but who gives a shit. Especially considering it is the lowlife Steve Scalise. There's more you can read in this article mentioning Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and a jab at Mitt Romney and his Mormon religion. And I have to mention here that during all of the ranting and raving, congressional Republicans were cheering this idiot along. Beyond pathetic!

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

According to Bernie Sanders' campaign, Michael Bloomberg is an "oligarch"

Image result for nina turner bernie sanders
Nina Turner - Bernie Sanders

The mud slinging between Bernie Sanders' campaign and Michael Bloomberg had to start sometime with the former New York Mayor crashing the Primary with everything he can muster. Bloomberg's focus has been on Donald Trump with a minimum of attention directed against Democratic opponents. But Sanders' co-chair, Nina Turner, decided to start the action going by labeling Bloomberg an oligarch. 

Her concern was about, "'the oligarchs' being able to buy their way into elections." Bernie, of course, believe there is a huge inequity between the rich, like Michael Bloomberg, and the poor and middle class, and he would be right. But you have to consider what Bloomberg has done with his billions, from fighting gun violence to attacking the climate change issue. Besides, Turner's real problem is letting the billionaire into future debates. Here's the scenario...
"The Democratic National Committee is drastically revising its criteria to participate in primary debates after New Hampshire, doubling the polling threshold and eliminating the individual donor requirement, which could pave the way for former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg to make the stage beginning in mid-February."
Here are the new qualifications...
"Candidates will need to earn at least 10 percent in four polls released from Jan. 15 to Feb. 18, or 12 percent in two polls conducted in Nevada or South Carolina, in order to participate in the Feb. 19 debate in Las Vegas. Any candidate who earns at least one delegate to the national convention in either the Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primary will also qualify for the Nevada debate."
Those who haven't yet hit the polling threshold are: Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Yang and Tom Steyer. Those who are over are: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The new criteria eliminate the individual-donor threshold, allowing Bloomberg to participate after New Hampshire. It also makes the way for his participation with his philosophy of not accepting any donations, using his own money, to prevent any problems with donor influence.

This might very well be the new starting point for the Democratic Primary with replenished hope for a successful outcome that will beat Donald Trump.

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Looks like millennials could put Bernie Sanders over the top

There are 71 million millennials in the United States ages 24 to 39. 26 millennials voted in 2018. Bernie Sanders is ahead in the Iowa Caucuses and he leads in the New Hampshire Primary. So what does this say for the Bern...
"Democrats will need high turnout among young, left-leaning voters in November, and Bernie Sanders is overwhelmingly popular with such voters."
Joe Biden has been the front-runner on the left since he entered the race, with other candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg running up and down the rankings. Sanders has continually hovered around second position throughout the Primary competition, but lately has been surging...
"According to a Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday, Bernie Sanders boasts the support of 53 percent of Democratic voters under 35 nationwide, while Joe Biden lays claim to just 3 percent. That poll’s margin of error is 3.4 percentage points — which means that the percentage of younger voters who support the Democratic Party’s current front-runner could, technically, round down to zero."
The fact of the matter is that Joe Biden just does not appeal to the younger generation even though he is younger than Bernie by two years. The Intelligencer reports...
"Although Sanders’s 2016 backers did not sit out (or defect) during the general election in aberrantly high numbers, the age gap between Biden and Bernie backers this year is even larger than the one that prevailed between Clinton and the Vermont senator four years ago."
And then you have Michael Bloomberg entering the race who seems to be syphoning off support from all the candidates but Bernie Sanders. As I have said earlier, I am not sure Bloomberg is running to win or just to make sure Donald Trump doesn't win. The next couple of months will certainly be interesting.

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

The NRA can be taken over by children. Here's how.

Why not? Children are the only age group that appears intelligent enough with the desire to pass reasonable gun control legislation. Certainly not the idiots that populate the U.S. Congress and absolutely not the lunatic in the White House. GQ reports it would take about 350,000 new members joining the National Rifle Assn. to out vote the bare 6 to 7 percent who currently vote on NRA issues. Enlist Michael Bloomberg founder of Everytown for Gun Safety to underwrite the $12,250,000 necessary to pay the dues of the 350,000,000. Once they are in they can take over the NRA by vote.

Call a vote and fire the current board, electing one from the new members. Then, the new board votes to oust its Executive V.P. Wayne LaPierre. Next, the board fires the staff of the National Rifle Assn., selling its building and other assets, donating it all to the cause of gun control. Some of the proceeds could be used to reimburse at least some of the $12.5 M Bloomberg extended for memberships. Finally, the board votes to dissolve the NRA and retires its name in a way it can never be used again. This could be a neat package to get rid of much of the gun violence by disposing of the NRA.

Whadda ya think? Gun nuts welcome.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Would you vote for Hillary Clinton if Bernie Sanders isn't nominated?

Sanders Warren ticket
One voter said Clinton is “bought and paid for,” another said he wouldn't vote for Clinton unless Elizabeth Warren was on the ticket. Yet one more said the "dream" ticket would be Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Those are three viewpoints that do indicate a definite preference, but don't demonstrate a voting population that would stay home from the polls without Bernie. And they shouldn't. All you need to confirm this is to look at who leads the GOP ticket. Donald Trump.

If you want that maniac in office, or for that matter, any of his fellow candidates, especially Ted Cruz, then stay home on November 8. Most agree that "...a low-energy, low-turnout election in November would be disastrous for Democrats," according to the Washington Times. Jeff Weaver, Sanders campaign manager, feels his candidate is the one to wake up new progressive candidates and bring them out in November. says, “The head of one of the two big political parties in the United States is trying to manipulate the presidential election process by limiting direct debate and tilting the national party apparatus in favor of one candidate. This is unacceptable,” A Democratic county chairman in Iowa, Jason Frerichs agrees. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was co-chair of Hillary's campaign in 2008. There’s no doubt she’s putting her fingers on the scale, limiting the number of sanctioned debates,” Mr. Frerichs said.

And now Michael Bloomberg says he might run if Hillary Clinton isn't nominated. Looking at Bernie Sanders momentum and his recent surge in the polls, don't think the Bern will worry, although Bloomberg could take away some votes.

Monday, December 21, 2015

Obama prepares Executive Orders to quell gun violence

President Obama met with one of the country's top gun control advocates, Michael Bloomberg, and promised more action on gun control. Bloomberg has taken to task Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Assn., and his minion gun nuts on several occasions and won, most notably in Bloomberg's support of gun control politicians. His major opposition organization is Everytown for Gun Safety, which is the anti NRA group. Time will tell if they can bring down the NRA.

White House communications director Jen Psaki says that Executive Orders are being prepared by the Dept. of Justice, but that because they expect litigation challenging any order given, extra care is being taken to insure the EOs will withstand any objections in court. The gun nuts are already salivating over all this and the NRA attorneys are behind closed doors planning their strategy. Obama's actions will be simple in nature, including things we have heard hundreds of times, all of which any sane person would agree are desperately needed:

  • Universal background checks
  • Close gun show loophole
  • Ban straw purchases
  • Ban assault weapons
  • Reinstate CDC collection and analysis of U.S. gun violence

There may be more and any one of the above may not be included in Obama's final Executive Order, but these seem to me to be the priorities that could help bring the current gun violence spree under control. Let's face it all you gun rights activists, we tried it LaPierre's way and it hasn't worked. Now it's time to try it our way.

Monday, April 13, 2015


APPARENTLY NOT. Poor baby was not invited to Wacky Wayne LaPierre's party at his National Rifle Assn. affair last weekend held in Nashville. Rand Paul and his staff claim it is due to his ties to the National Association for Gun Rights. I don't know which organization is worse. Others were left out like Lindsey Graham and Mike Huckabee but after some sucking up to the NRA, they were invited. It is pathetic when a U.S. Senator and former Governor have to kiss WW's ass to get an invite to his movable feast. However, Paul's snub is not because he isn't a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment. He is. But the gun control advocates have recently announced to new approach to their goals. Where Republican Governors and state legislatures control many states, thus, loose gun laws, the new efforts are aimed at state ballot measures. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is bankrolling the movement. Watch for a ballot in your state.

Sunday, June 8, 2014


Wacky Wayne LaPierre in his glory
Let's just look at what this club for gun loving misfits is for and against. The National Rifle Assn. is against universal background checks, lawsuits against the firearm industry, micro stamping and any tampering with the 2nd Amendment. They are for assault rifles, large capacity magazines, concealed and open carry anywhere and Stand Your Ground Law. There's more but these are the ones covered in a recent release from their Institute for Legislative Action. They rail over former NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg putting up $50 million to fight gun control along with George Soros's group divvying up $40 million. Wacky Wayne LaPierre's NRA addicts spent $40 million in 2008, $10 million of that to defeat President Obama. On the Colorado recall alone they spent $350,000. We know the NRA is against anything that would restrict their beloved guns. But what this bunch of gun nuts is finding out is that there are many of us out there that place saving the lives of innocent individuals over their stupid gun rights.


Michael Bloomberg
As of the end of April, the dollars with sense have passed the dollars with blood on their hands prompted by the Newtown gun massacre where 26 lives were taken by shooter Adam Lanza, 20 of them children around six years old. And they have apparently done it through grassroots organizations, you might say just the opposite of the gun nuts of the National Rifle Assn. Michael Bloomberg kicked in $50 million, Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly's gun control group around $15 million. Gun control is about $5 million ahead of gun rights so far in the 2014 election cycle. They have trailed by over $31 million in the past. Now there are dour predictions out there for the GOP retaking control of the Senate and no chance of the Left taking back the House. Does this kind of momentum change that equation?

Monday, October 22, 2012

Gun control…a nada in the second Presidential debate

Bloomberg announces Super PAC

Neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney provided satisfactory answers to what they would do about gun control, especially according to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is an avid proponent of taking illegal guns off the streets.  Bloomberg was so upset that he pledged millions through a new super PAC backing candidates and ballot initiatives in favor of gun control.  This could very well be the turning point to challenge NRA political contributions.

The National Rifle Assn. (NRA) has bought and maintains the U.S. Congress.  These wimps in Washington are scared to death of what wacky Wayne LaPierre and his gang of lackeys will do if they don’t toe the line and support their style of gun rights.  Innocent Americans’ lives be-damned.  As an example, over 9,000 people died from gun-related homicides in the U.S. in 2011.  VOXXI reports:

“This is an astounding total when one considers that the death of 2,000 people in an organized military conflict is considered to be a major war.”

Video of debate gun control questions:

VOXXI also tells us that if the gun show loophole had been closed, the Aurora, Colo. movie shooting wouldn’t have happened.  The shooter, James Holmes, “got his semi-automatic rifle from a friend who bought it for him from an unlicensed dealer at a gun show.”  These unlicensed dealers aren’t required to make background checks, and didn’t even after the woman buying the weapon told the dealer it was for someone too young to buy a gun.

It has been established that over 70% of the guns used in crimes in Mexico come from the U.S.  This, after the U.S. recently withdrew its support for the global Arms Trade Treaty.  And you guessed it, the NRA opposes this treaty making the organization not only responsible for innocent deaths in the United States, but all over the world.  Another case of illegal guns going out of the U.S., 3 men were recently arrested in Nashville for buying firearms and shipping them to Australia.

 In the second debate, Obama said he favored renewing the assault weapons ban, a statement he has made before with no follow through.  He also wants to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and wants more “conversation” on the issue.  That’s when the ammunition hit the fan and Bloomberg said we’ve already talked enough.  The Mayor says it’s now time for action and put his money where his mouth.  Romney is against any new gun regulation.

Adam Winkler's latest book
Adam Winkler, a specialist in American Constitutional Law at UCLA, says in the Daily Beast that an assault weapons ban is not the answer since the gunman can come armed with multiple weapons, in case one jams.  Contrary to that belief, if semi-automatic weapons were banned, another thought is that, at least, the assailant would kill less people.  Winkler continues, mass shootings aren’t the real problem, it’s gun violence like Chicago’s where assault weapons aren’t used. 
Rebekah Metzler on NPR corrected the Romney comment that it is illegal in this country to have an automatic weapon.  Metzler said:

“It's not entirely correct. For those who had automatic weapons prior to the ban, which happened in 1986, they're still allowed to have those as long as they're registered with the federal government. Those same weapons prior to 1986 that were registered with the federal government are also allowed to be bought and sold if you jump through some hoops.”

VOXXI contends that undercutting the power of the NRA “will require a major public outcry that will make politicians realize that there is a political price to be paid for opposing gun control.”  That is what we gun control advocates have been trying to accomplish for years.  Maybe NY Mayor Bloomberg’s distress over the lack of attention to the issue in the debates and his subsequent super PAC to address gun control will finally provide the answer.

Friday, August 31, 2012

I want the next President to do something about gun violence

We all know that would not be Mitt Romney, particularly with Paul Ryan as his Vice President.  And President Barack Obama has been sorely lacking in his support for even banning assault rifles again along with high capacity magazines.  So what do we do?  New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is this nation’s strongest advocate for gun control through his organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns, but he already turned the job down in the past.

The NRA "elephant in the room"
I am a solid supporter of Barack Obama but if he doesn’t get the balls to come out of the closet for gun control after the recent mass shootings, I have to reassess my support.  Enough is enough and the President knows it but is afraid the NRA will doom his second term if he suddenly does what is right.  I did two posts on confirmed results that the NRA really cannot influence an election to the extent they claim.  You can see Part 1, Part 2.

Anyway there is additional evidence that the NRA myth isn’t true.  Gun control supporters from both parties have won Senate and House seats: 

Republicans include Sen. Mark Kirk in Illinois, Sen. Dan Coats in Indiana; these two even picked off Democratic seats.  For the Democrats, Senators Barbara Boxer in California; Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand from New York.  Ron Wyden in Oregon, Barbara Mikulski in Maryland and Daniel Inouye in Hawaii; Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut, Michael Bennet in Colorado and Chris Coons in Delaware.

Why Mitt Romney, especially Paul Ryan, must be defeated:

Erin Capuano in a Digital Journal op-ed asks how the 2nd Amendment has been distorted to “commit crimes and make money for the gun lobbyists?”  And the answer to that I have been talking about for years is that the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) led by Wayne LaPierre has put the fear of God in Congress and the White House that they can be easily replaced if they don’t play wacky Wayne’s game. 

She claims that amid yearly increases in gun violence and homicides, “gun laws are stripped away state by state.”

Capuano reviews the arguments over the 2nd Amendment and how the Bill of Rights was written at a time when a new democracy was being created and there were threats of tyrannical governments and military run states, all of which has long since vanished years ago.  But wacky Wayne has hung his hat on the 2nd Amendment and will no doubt hold on until they take it from his cold dead hands.  Yes, Charlton Heston was just as looney as LaPierre is.

The op-ed writer says “The NRA has been the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing for generations…” talking about their support for the rights of gun owners in a crusade that has repeatedly placed the right to own a gun and take it anywhere over human life.  Just look at the figures she provides from the latest year broken down, 2008, of firearms murder victims:

·       Handguns – 6,755
·       Rifles - 375
·       Shotguns - 444
·       Other not specified or type unknown - 79
·       Firearms, type not stated – 1,831

Grand Total 2008 – 9,484 deaths by firearms.

In 2010 there were 8,775 murders using guns and none of the above includes the wounded.  Take a look at my U.S. Shootings Report for July which started listing “woundings” in June, and also with links back to March.  There’s more in Capuano’s op-ed comparing gun homicides in the U.S. with those in Canada where the gun laws are much stronger. 

She closes with, “We can have stricter gun laws while still allowing people to own guns, we can limit the amount of guns that people own, the type of guns that they are able to own and where and when they are able to have those guns and use them.”  This statement should be an excellent place for the White House or someone in Congress to start the drive for more gun regulation. 

There has to be an American public now that sympathizes after the recent mass shootings.  If not, American gun deaths will continue to escalate.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Empire State Building shooting ruins mass shooting silence

The Onion was celebrating a week without any major massacres by firearms when it had to back off as it was announced that there had just been a mass shooting at New York City’s Empire State Building right in the middle of Manhattan.  You probably wouldn’t classify this as the typical massacre like Aurora, Colo. or the Wisconsin Sikh temple because the gunman only shot and killed one person.  The nine wounded were from police fire.

Assisting victim in Empire State Bldg shooting
Now I am no expert at criminology, but does this incident appear to have been prompted by a police force—one of the finest in the world—that has become influenced with the possibility that every public shooting is potentially a massacre?  These are well trained officers yet they wounded nine bystanders in the melee.  Has the huge availability of guns in this country pushed police departments in America to the edge, resulting in this kind of outcome?

To give you an idea of the actual anticipation of the possibility of more imminent gun violence, federal authorities commented that a lot can happen in 24 hours, saying: ““so let’s not get too excited yet.”  And they were right.  Yet another person armed with a gun holding a grudge killed an innocent person.  Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was down the street talking to the celebrating crowd and when told what had happened said:

“You know what, forget it. There was another one about 20 blocks from here. So, party’s over. Sorry.”

It is a sorry state of affairs when we can’t go one week without a shooting that ends up killing innocent victims and wounding several others.  But it is blatantly clear why this can happen and it all centers around the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) and its head, Wayne LaPierre.  This organization, commandeered by this wacko in the late 1970s, who devised his evil concept that 2nd Amendment rights are more important than human life, deserves the majority of the blame for all the killings.

Vivid tape of Empire State Bldg. chaos with victim:

The shooter, Jeffrey Johnson, used a .45-caliber semiautomatic and was armed with extra ammunition in his briefcase.  Johnson was killed by police but not until he caused nine innocent people to be shot.  In “Criminologist James Alan Fox has written that, according to FBI data, mass shootings have fluctuated since 1980 with no sustained upward or downward trend.”  But his data stops with the year 2010 with no crime data available for 2012.

As regular readers know, I have been compiling nationwide figures on shootings since this past March, including deaths and woundings, broken down by the city in which they occurred.  The numbers are starkly unbelievable and should shock the apathetic American public that has been shunning gun control.  Since March 2012 there have been 432 deaths from 1,056 shootings; woundings were added to the report in June and in only 2 months there have been 628.

Keep in mind that these figures represent only those reported by the media and, thus, considered somewhat conservative.

To extend the data above by James Alan Fox that stopped in 2010 re. mass shootings, there were 28 that occurred since Columbine in 1999 through 2011, including the shooting and severe wounding of former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in Tucson, Arizona in Jan. 2011 where 6 were killed and 18 others wounded.  Most notable from the 28, the massacre at Virginia Tech where 32 were killed, 15 wounded.  Then Fort Hood, Texas with 13 dead and 42 wounded.

But that was just the warm up.  2012 exploded during the summer with 17 wounded with an assault weapon at a Tuscaloosa, Ala. bar.  Then the mass shooting at the Aurora, Colo. theatre killing 12 and injuring 58.  Next it was the Sikh Temple in Wis. where 6 were killed and 4 wounded.  Which brings us up to the incident at New York’s empire State building.  Fox comments that this trend is likely to continue with around 300 million guns in the hands of Americans.

Also from, Philip J. Cook, crime scholar and Ludwig's coauthor on Gun Violence, “believes adversarial political rhetoric is a possible contributing factor. He criticizes the NRA for ‘promoting the idea that Obama's goal is to take away guns and they have to fight to prevent that from happening,’ an idea he says has stirred up fringe gun enthusiasts and led to record-breaking rises in gun purchases and concealed-weapon applications in many states.

NY Mayor Bloomberg with his group
Just moments before the Empire State building shooting, NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg on WOR’s John Gambling Show said, “I don’t know what it takes, John.  Somebody asked me what would shock Congress. Well, they had a Congresswoman shot…. And that didn’t seem to do anything,” the mayor said. “The Founding Fathers I don’t think ever envisioned AK-47’s in the hands of people."  The congress is clueless and Obama afraid of the NRA.
Mayor Bloomberg has been asking for new gun regulations for years and in a
CBS NY article they are spelled out:

·       Require background checks for every gun sold — 40 percent of all guns are sold without background checks

·       Stronger enforcement of straw sales, where someone buys a gun for someone not eligible to own one

·       A requirement that states enter criminal and mental health records into the federal background check system

I would add to this the banning of all assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

When will this country wake up?  Following all other developed countries in gun control and leading that group plus many third-world countries in deaths from shootings should confound the simplest-minded person.  We are not a nation of dummies, although some congressional leaders and states like Arizona would challenge that notion.  We have a chance to do what’s right with the escalation of gun violence.  The question is…are we smart enough to do it?

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Has the NRA provided a ‘license to murder’ in “stand your ground law?”

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thinks so, claiming the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) promotes a gun culture at the expense of public safety in its creation of and promotion of the “stand your ground” laws.  This legislation that allows gun owners to claim self defense in shooting someone, even killing them, if they feel threatened, has been passed or is under consideration in 35 states.  Florida, where it originally passed in 2005, is where Trayvon Martin was killed.

Bloomberg claims it advocates vigilantism saying, “You just cannot have a civilized society where everybody can have a gun and make their own decisions as to whether someone is threatening or not."  Further, "This has nothing to do with gun owners' rights, nothing to do with the second amendment. Plain and simple, this is just trying to give people a license to murder."  The twisted minds of the NRA and some of its members will no doubt try to refute all of this.

And this fanaticism is not limited to the gun worshippers.  Immediately following the Trayvon Martin shooting, U.S. senators introduced NRA-backed legislation that would require all states to honor any permit for the concealed carry of weapons that has been issued by any other state.  Considering the fact that just about anyone in the state of Arizona can buy a gun and carry it anywhere they choose, you could be putting gun freaks on the street throughout the country.

It is almost as if the NRA looks at a tragedy like Trayvon Martin’s killing and suddenly realizes the promotability of the incident to assure its dues-paying membership that, no matter how horrific a situation is we can overcome the negativity by passing another law to loosen gun control.  And then they promptly take it to the gun nuts in Congress who are afraid to oppose the NRA.  Pathetic! 

Geo. Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin

If you are a Bill Cosby fan, or even if you aren't, this is a must-see video on his view of gun control below:

And something that could become a national public safety issue is the confusion that has been planted in the minds of police officers of whether or not to bring charges against someone like a George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin in supposed self defense.  The Sanford, Florida police did not, yet a special prosecutor brought 2nd degree murder charges against Zimmerman.  This kind of mentality could potentially release a maniac to do even more killing.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, “Most Americans support the right to use deadly force to protect themselves -- even in public places -- and have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association…”  OK, I can live with number one, confined to the home, but two and three completely baffle me considering the evidence of so many guns on the street and the shootings that take place daily.  There were 48 deaths from shootings alone in just last March. 

The poll concluded that "Americans do hold to this idea that people should be allowed to defend themselves and using deadly force is fine, in those circumstances," said pollster Chris Jackson. "In the theoretical ... there's a certain tolerance of vigilantism."  But did the poll mention to its respondents that many of these cowboys have absolutely no training in the use of firearms, like in Arizona where it isn’t required.  Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to stop Gun Violence.

I asked him the amount of training the average gun owner was required to have?  His reply: 

“If they're simply purchasing firearms, none whatsoever.  If they are  going to be carrying that gun in public, they MIGHT be required to have training.  In 28 states you can now openly carry a loaded gun in public with no permitting, screening or training.  Four states now require no permitting, screening or training to carry a concealed firearm in public.  And even in "Shall Issue" states that require one to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public, several have no training requirement.”

“According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, nearly 100,000 people are shot every year in the United States in murders, suicides, accidents or police intervention.”  A whopping 91 percent want every gun owner to have a background check, including those in the gun show loophole, a move that the NRA and its members will probably fight to the death.  A measly 6 percent were in favor of no or minimum restrictions.

There is so much mixed reaction in this poll that I recommend that some independent pollster conduct a current study to determine just how often a gun-carrier has been successful in stopping an individual confrontation or has been instrumental in assisting someone in need.  The NRA crusades for guns for everyone everywhere in the name of protection and self defense.  It is time that we know just how effective this is, particularly re. carrying of concealed weapons.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) uses Super Bowl to launch latest drive for more gun control

The Giants beat the Patriots 21 to 17 in the 2012 Super Bowl where no one turns down the sound on commercials that can sometime be as interesting as the game itself.  One in particular stood out on February 5, showing New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino vying for their local teams, food etc.  But the real focus of the 30 second commercial was a new push by Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) for more gun control.

Bloomberg and Menino co-founded the organization in 2006 which currently has more than 600 mayors nationwide participating.  Their main thrust is to keep criminals from getting illegal guns. 

A good example of their work is the recent sting by MAIG at an Arizona gun show, a state where gun laws are the loosest in the nation.  MAIG investigators bought guns from a private weapons dealer there without anything but the money it took to make the purchase.  They even told the seller they probably could not pass a background check.  The seller simply laughed at their comment and sold them the guns, which is illegal.

MAIG plans to keep the heat on for more gun control right through the November election, although the Democrats still cringe at the thought of supporting any gun discipline legislation.  Unfortunately, there are more people in the U.S. with guns now and these newly created National Rifle Assn. gun worshippers are fixated on no control so anyone can buy a gun and take it anywhere.  And there lies the problem.

Arizona gun show sting

According to a Reuters report, “Members of the MAIG says it is not trying to take guns away from their legal owners, just to close loopholes that allow criminals to get guns and move them around undetected.”  Although murder is down in New York and nationwide, the mayors also comment that they still see too many killings of cops and teens.  It is rare for a day to go by in Arizona without a shooting, some of which end up as deaths.

This gun show loophole/background checks issue is one area that needs fixing.  But another is required education and training before you can own a gun.  Arizona has nothing, zip.  Most states don’t.  I decided to ask an expert so I contacted Ladd Everitt, Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and asked the following question: “Can you tell me the average gun training/education a gun owner is required to have?”  His answer below.

“If they're simply purchasing firearms, none whatsoever.  If they are going to be carrying that gun in public, they MIGHT be required to have training.  In 28 states you can now openly carry a loaded gun in public with no permitting, screening or training.  Four states now require no permitting, screening or training to carry a concealed firearm in public. 

And even in ‘Shall Issue’ states that require one to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public, several have no training requirement.  In Arizona, it is wide open.  Law enforcement would have no idea what the background of a gun carrier is until he opens fire (unless that individual voluntarily obtained a permit to carry a firearm into certain sensitive public spaces).”

Phew!  That means a mentally unstable person from Arizona could walk into a gun store there and buy a Glock 19 with a 15-round clip, hop in his car, and assuming Congress passes HR 822, the federal open-carry bill, with a carry permit drive to any state and commit mass murders like Jared Loughner in Tucson and Seung Hui Cho at Virginia Tech.  Assuming he wasn’t caught, he could be on his merry way to another state to commit more mayhem.  Only in America.

More on MAIG later.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

More gun sense and nonsense

Starting with the ridiculous, New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg has shown the gun freaks once again that he means business.  Some time back he demonstrated how some low-lifes in Arizona and elsewhere in the country were willing and anxious to sell guns to people they had reason to believe did not have the right to own them.  You can read more on this in an earlier Nasty Jack post.


In my post, Bloomberg and Thomas Menino, Mayor of Boston and co-founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, were asking for an overhaul of the background-check system for gun purchases which allowed such massacres as the one at Virginia Tech which killed 32 people, injuring 17 others, and the most recent in Tucson, Arizona killing 6 and injuring 13, including U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords from Arizona.

Craigslist-New York
But the latest that Bloomberg/Menino have come up with exposes the gun industry once again as being irresponsibly relentless in its pursuit to make firearms available to anyone, no matter what their past, or whether they are fit to own a weapon.  The mayors’ sting operation centered on the online marketplace, particularly Craigslist and Web sites selling firearms. 

These reprehensible gun nuts were willing to sell to NYC investigators that clearly admitted they were probably unable to pass a background check.  Some even said they were too young to buy a gun legally.  These private sellers are not required to make a background check, but knowingly selling to someone who admits to not being able to pass one is a felony.  Just more of the NRA’s best.  In all fairness, there were other instances where the seller refused to make the deal.

And then there was the person who could lose their 2nd Amendment rights over having a medical marijuana card, which borders on ridiculous.  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) now says you will lose a “key constitutional right” if you let your state know you take pot medicinally.  Arizona’s make-believe governor, Jan Brewer, and Michigan’s attorney general are already interfering with medical marijuana laws legally passed by their constituents.

In a Nevada case, a woman is challenging this BATFE ruling after trying to buy a gun and being turned down.  If her intent is to have the weapon in her home for protection, it is absurd that the government would deny her this 2nd Amendment right just because she uses the medical marijuana for pain.  However, in terms of issuing her a concealed carry permit to walk the streets with her weapon, I would be absolutely against this and another court case in Oregon is pending on this issue.  It all comes down to what’s reasonable and both sides must give.

Guns and marijuana
Where’s the NRA when you need them?  Just let a situation like this get a little touchy, in this case involving medical marijuana, and they tuck their tail between their legs and hide.  Other larger gun organizations have done the same.  But it could all come down to an order from President Obama that directs BATFE to make an interpretation of the policy, which is in their discretion, to determine that these users are not unlawful due to their regulation under state law.  It’s all about bureaucracy and in this case the gun industry should win.

Donald Trump Says He Will Be Indicted On Tuesday

  THAT'S TODAY... Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has brought the case to this point, now looking at a possible indictment. Trum...