Previous Post
Next Post

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is doing everything in his power to disarm American citizens. He founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an organization that tricks mayors into joining and then uses their names to demonize gun owners and push for extreme gun control measures to be enacted. Despite his billions, he uses New York City public resources and funds to spread his anti-gun message. And he spends MAIG moolah to run ads in pro-gun states trying to extend his firearm unfriendly message far beyond the Empire State. But for all the trouble Michael Bloomberg has gone to, it looks like his strident advocacy might actually be hurting his cause instead of helping . . .

ABC reports that Vermont Senator Pat Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had this to say about Bloomberg’s scorched earth gun control campaign:

“Unfortunately, you have some on the left like the mayor of New York City, who actually didn’t help a bit with his ads. He actually turned off some people that we might have  gotten for supporters,” Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview to air on C-SPAN Newsmakers on Sunday.

Excessive stridency naturally turns some people off. Even those who would otherwise be supporters. No one likes to be told what to do by outsiders who see their state as a benighted backwater that exists only to grow food and support the welfare state that feeds New York.

That’s especially true of someone who happily twists facts and logic to further his own agenda. Little things like claiming that American tanks fire nuclear bombs. Bloomberg’s message might be a more effective if he stuck to the facts once in a while instead of just using the same old playbook. But let’s not tell him, OK?

Previous Post
Next Post



    LEAHY: Don’t look at ME! SEE THAT MIDGET? He’s more evil than I am! You don’t trust MIDGETS, DO YOU?

  2. I live in NYC and own a gun (legally) it’s more trouble than it’s worth and expensive but I do it because I can. I can’t wait till this clown is gone the problem is I don’t know who can replace him that isn’t already a copy of him.

    • I’m a NYC gun owner too, and agree completely. The problem with NYC is not that the next mayor will be a copy of Bloomberg , but that he’ll be worse than Bloomberg.

      • Can it really get worse than him? Worse than a “man” who tried to limit the size beverage a person can buy?

        • Don’t jinx it, brother; you know it can get worse than Bloomberg. He may be the scum at the very bottom, but don’t forget that there’s even nastier stuff growing underneath the barrel.

        • I suppose youre both right. Chalk it up to denial. I have voted ever since I was 18, for ten years now but have only recently took a real interest in politics. Maybe Im just dissapointed that all this garbage is happening at the same time.

        • Just to be fair, but it was under President Bush that the incandescent light bulb ban was snuck in, but by Nancy Pelosi. However, I have no doubt that if legislation was put forth to undo it, that President Obama would veto it.

        • Also, the “ban” put a minimum efficiency standard in place, a standard that manufacturers had met long before. It didn’t actually ban incandescent bulbs.

  3. I wondered when this would happen. After boinking their gun control slam dunk, I was just waiting to see them start eating each other like rabid dogs as they attempt to distance themselves from their disgraceful loss and Presidential hissy fit. I’ll be back later ya’ll. Gonna go get some beer, this should be fun to watch.

  4. Bloombag is going to make it very easy for some Republicans and even a few Democrats. If Little Mike is involved in a state election, a candidate can link his opponent to Bloomy and run against the loudmouth mayor and not his actual opponent.

    Nobody likes a poisonous dwarf New York City billionaire interfering with their local politics. Hell, they don’t even like him much in NYC. He barely won reelection the last time around, running against a total unknown with no money.

  5. Did any one see Bloomberg’s body guards? they are big enough physically, an enough of them to intimidate the front line of the N.Y. Jets, with out their guns. Why doesn’t he disarm his bodyguards. In fact I would like to see him walk all the streets in New York at night without his bodyguards and the N.Y.C. Police. Let alone ride all the subway systems at night by him self.

  6. Hey! I spent the better part of four years as a M1A1 gunner, and I assure you, the thing “dont shoot no ‘nucular’ bombs!” (during the Bush era)

    • He would probably try to ban “depleted uranium” rounds because they are armor piercing and limit them to 12 oz.

  7. Translation from Democrats: SHUT UP!!!! Most Dems now distance themselves from last Aprils vote and in order to keep the senate they need to say away from gun bans Bloomberg wont let this happen so Dems had enough and now say SHUT UP!!!!

  8. that is the funniest video i have ever seen. isn’t their an old saying that goes along the lines of “its better to remain silent and appear a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

  9. When he talks about these “nuclear rounds”, does he mean depleted uranium rounds? The only mini nuclear bombs I know of are the ones in Fallout 3.

    • They actually had man-portable mini-nukes fired from recoilless rifles in the 60s and 70s. Look up the M26/27 Davy Crockett. Crazy stuff.

      • The problem with this weapons system is that the warhead had a greater effective range than the recoiless rifle had to launch it.

      • They also had the 155mm W48 shell that could be fired from the M109 but those aren’t in use anymore. Also so obscure that I doubt that it is what Bloomberg is talking about. He can just keep thinking that DU shells are nuclear bombs.

  10. Good effing grief, he makes two mistakes with this whopper of a statement:

    1) The Abrams does not have a rifle. It has a smoothbore cannon.

    2) It sure as hell does not fire nuclear bombs. He is confusing the depleted uranium rounds.

  11. “Does that mean everyone should have one?” Well, since as of 2002, the cost of the M256 cannon alone was $100,000 ( , page 38), that’d probably limit the audience of people that could buy them. Not to mention the several thousand dollars per round for the ammunition. And the cost of the tank on which you’d mount the gun. And lack of available places to shoot it. But whatever.

    • I bet Ted Nuggent would get one if allowed too. Now that I think about it maybe he already does………. Oh he would have so much fun.

      • My one buddy, an M1A1 gunner, talked about how deer accidently got zapped by .50 cal sighting shots and a few sabot rounds on the practice range, so we can see Ted doing something like that!

  12. Show of hands, is anyone here afraid of a millionaire collector with a tank? (They exist and on some the guns aren’t demilled.)

    How many here are afraid of the BATFE&Really Big Fires with a tank?

    See right there’s the problem folks, that’s called tyranny.

    Given that no privately owned military tank or artillery has ever been used in a crime of any sort, and the BATFE have killed at least 72 people with their tank, many of them women and children, I’d say we should absolutely give the tanks the BATFE has to collectors.

  13. How horribly ironic, a Jew trying to herd his fellow countrymen to the showers, in the name of the children. The ‘Big Gov’ thing that many of these secular humanist, atheistic libtards have going on is so dangerous. The people who follow this power hungry lunatic cant see the comparisons with 30’s Germany and Stalins USSR.

  14. Oh this is fantastic. It would be great if we could turn banners and grabbers against each other, let them destroy themselves from the inside out. One. Could only hope.

  15. I know a guy on Bloomberg’s detail and, according to my guy, Bloomberg’s just as much of a dbag as we all want to believe. It sure is fun watching him crash and burn.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here