Examiner – by Dave WorkmanBillionaire anti-gunner Michael Bloomberg may have entered a new phase of selling gun control yesterday when, during a conversationwith Bob Schieffer on CBS’ “Face The Nation,” he introduced a new term regarding background checks and also suggested that gun control, by any other name, is not gun control.
At about three and a half minutes into the interview, Bloomberg told Schieffer, “We’ve got to make sure that the Congressmen understand the vast bulk of Americans want them to vote for sensible gun regulation, not control, not banning, just regulation.”
“That’s splitting hairs,” noted Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and a longtime Bloomberg critic. Gottlieb is also founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, which sued Bloomberg while he was still New York mayor over the city’s gun laws.
Bloomberg last month launched a $50 million so-called “grassroots” effort to push gun control and support political candidates who support restrictive gun measures. Dubbed “Everytown for Gun Safety,” the project incorporates Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.
“Sensible gun regulation” translates to gun control. That Bloomberg tried to separate the terms was not surprising to some observers, including Breitbart, which went after him for something else he said during the Schieffer interview.
Bloomberg also introduced a new term for background checks. Instead of “universal,” such checks are now “reasonable.”
Gottlieb is no stranger to the verbal acrobatics of the background check battle, having been wrongly accused last week of supporting gun registration because he allegedly supported “universal background checks,” but neither one of those accusations is true. In a conversation this morning at his offices, Gottlieb noted that he has never supported registration, and that legislation introduced last year – the Manchin-Toomey amendment – was hardly a “universal background check” measure because of all the exemptions it contained.
He was interviewed yesterday on Tom Gresham’s “Gun Talk” radio program about those allegations. That discussion may be heard here.
Bloomberg is not the only anti-gunner to play semantics games. The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, which is pushing Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure, does so with its very name. “Gun Responsibility” disguises the true intent of the organization, say some critics, because what it really promotes is gun control. However, no organization is going to call itself an alliance for gun control, because the term is politically toxic.
Anti-gunners pushing “gun safety laws” or “gun reform” are likewise packaging gun control under a new label that they believe will sell to the public. True “gun safety” organizations are those that teach safe and proper handling and use of firearms, such as the National Rifle Association. The NRA has thousands of certified firearms instructors, has developed training manuals and course materials, and has provided instruction to millions of American citizens.
http://www.examiner.com/article/bloomberg-sets-new-tone-for-disingenuous-anti-gun-semantics
I usually look favorably upon most people. But every now and then someone comes along and you just wish he would drop dead.
To me it sounds like Bloomie is getting desperate, and doesn’t know when he’s been beaten.
And aside from this being an obvious lie:
“the vast bulk of Americans want them to vote for sensible gun regulation”
Who is the “vast bulk” of Americans? Is he now measuring anti-gun voters by their weight? Are gun grabbers fatter than everyone else or something?
Funny, Jolly! Made me laugh aloud.