Bill Pugliano / Getty Images
I really didn’t make up my mind exactly on what to write about after last week’s events until I saw the anti-gun commercial for Mike Bloomberg during the Super Bowl.
That spot was so disingenuous, it deserves a rebuttal.
First, some full disclosure. I have done some business with Bloomberg and I like Mike personally.
Well before he ever became mayor of New York, his company started a business radio network and my stations in both Tulsa and Las Vegas (long since sold) were among his first affiliates. The product was good and, when there were issues, I was shocked to discover he answered his own phone. He is — as his net worth would indicate — a very good businessman. So is the man already in the White House. In and of itself, that is not a qualification for the highest office in the land.
But Mike’s residence in New York and his lack of understanding, of both guns and the people outside of the city, make him a nonstarter in a race for president.
Like most people who would like to see a gun-free society, he simply doesn’t trust us.
He cannot conceive that there is such a thing as a good guy with a gun.
Ergo, just like Adolf Hitler, he thinks that only the government should have guns.
How did that work out in Germany?
Do you think Mike Bloomberg is fit to be president?
0% (0 Votes)
0% (0 Votes)
Bloomberg’s intentions are undoubtedly good. He’d like to see an end to gun violence. So would we all.
But his solution — however well-intentioned — reeks of the same condescension which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton brought to the public’s attention.
“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
That was Obama in 2008.
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
That was Hillary Clinton in 2016.
“It may be true that someone in the congregation had his own gun and killed the person who murdered two other people, but it’s the job of law enforcement to have guns and to decide when to shoot. You just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place.”
That just reeks of distrust of the “average” citizen — you and me.
There is another question which most people would logically ask: What if the guy with the gun had not been there?
Let me put this in terms that most people should understand. I live in rural Nevada. The Washoe County Sheriff has exactly two cars available to patrol a huge area that includes my house. When seconds count, the cops may well be a half an hour away. Am I supposed to play the lottery if I need to protect myself?
Frankly, a few dead gang-bangers in New York or Chicago who were killed by civilians protecting themselves would send a very strong message.
We can’t allow mere “average” citizens to do that?
It’s why many “average” citizens would rather live in places like Texas, Oklahoma, Nevada and other gun-friendly states.
Mike would rather speak at your funeral in New York. Not his — yours.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.