Michael Bloomberg, the multi-billionaire mayor of New York City, has a history of imposing his values on everyone he can reach. Recently, he banned trans fats in all NYC restaurants; he did this because he is a healthy eater, and he thinks everyone else should be as well. He expanded the ban on smoking to include even small restaurants and bars, as well as office buildings, because he doesn't like smoking. He claims to believe in global warming, and wants more government regulation, of course, to prevent it (If the New York Times doesn't publish the studies that show what little global warming there is isn't caused by man, do they exist?). The list goes on, and on; it's all a part of his "quality of life" plan for NYC and everywhere else. Nevermind the people he has to step on (and put out of business) and the majority opinions he has to disregard to get where he's going- he knows what's best for us, dammit.
The worst of his pet projects, however, stems from his hatred of the Second Amendment. He just can't stand to see law-abiding citizens owning guns. To that end, he's sued numerous gun dealers up and down the Eastern seaboard (most of these suits are baseless, but it's easy to continue a lawsuit till one of you is bankrupt if you're a billionaire and he's not), tried to get Congress to force the ATF to give police departments access to gun data, and formed a coalition of mayors against guns (at least four of whom have since dropped out, citing discomfort with the group's tactics), among other things.
He claims that his actions are to fight crime, but he has no response to the many studies and data that show that gun control laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals- all they do is keep law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves. Nor does he have a rational answer for why Great Britain, for example, has experienced sky-rocketing crime statistics, or why the number of illegal guns on the street has tripled (at least) since their handgun ban. Unsurprisingly, he can not tell us why similar problems would not arise in America if he got his way. Apparently he can't be bothered with such minutiae.
But the big picture really isn't about this busybody, annoying as he is. He may be the posterchild for the big government nanny- "I know what's best for you, don't argue with me"- but at least his sphere of influence is fairly small. I can move away (which I plan to) and you never have to move here (and you shouldn't). But if a Democrat gets elected this year, they're going to bring policies like this to the whole country. Have you noticed how Obama and Clinton talk about "change" all the time? The main criticism each has of the other is the other won't "change" things enough. Question: what sort of change are they talking about? They never say. I have some ideas, and you probably do as well, but isn't it odd that their supporters just seem excited by the prospect (or maybe just the word, who knows) and aren't at all curious what it means? There really needs to be some test you have to take before you can vote.
The title of today's post is a quote by Jacob Hornberger.
No comments:
Post a Comment