The Second Amendment Freedom Activist’s Eternal Lament

As David Harsanyi notes, there is no issue save religion that the mainstream, especially “elite”, media, do a worse job of covering than guns.

At RealClearPolitics, John Lott reports that legacy media outlets often quite literally allow anti–Second Amendment activists to write their news stories on gun policy. Politico hasn’t quite done that today, but . . . well, I’m not sure having reporters dutifully repackaging Everytown USA press releases is any better.

The whole thing is worth a read – not that it tells you anything you don’t know.   Even the best better among Twin Cities newsrooms, NPR, has given anti-gun activists an unfettered, unedited and un-fact-checked voice (although as we noted at that time, the bias’s roots were more likely financial than ideological). 

The media does do a terrible job.  Not for lack of effort on the part of gun-rights activists…

…and not without some good results.   I’ve noticed, at least at the local level, that journos can – or at least could – be taught.  Over the years, there’ve been examples of reporters that actually listened, and learned to write the whole story and tell the truth on the issue…

…before moving on elsewhere and being replaced by a new wave of journos with the same set of superstitions their predecessors had slowly cut loose.   The whole new generation then needs to be slowly, painstakingly taught that “gun owner <> incipient mass murdering white supremacist”.  

It’s a job that, it seems, will never end. 

Of course, any hint of departing from the narrative is weeded out at the local level – there is not a single national “journalist” outside overtly conservative media that can cover this issue fairly, or even accurately.   And Big Left runs a constant effort to groom reports to take Big Gun Control’s “facts” as fact.  

Which, as Harsanyi notes, is all too successful.  

By the way – if you are among the journos who reads this space, I’d be more than happy to take you to the range one of these days.  Have your people call my people.  

Jeopardy, 2021

CONTESTANT 1: “I’ll take “Riddle Me This” for $600, Alex”

TREBEK: “A couple of shades of melanin”

(CONTESTANT 2 Rings in)

TREBEK: Irving…

CONTESTANT 2: “What is ‘the difference between a community group of ‘freedom fighters’ and a ‘scary right wing militia’ to Big Media?”

TREBEK: Correct, and you have the board…

A State Of Cowards

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Looking at the spike in violence, Christian Science Monitor asks: “Who owns the streets?

In Minnesota, it’s the criminals.  Minnesota is a mandatory cowardice state.  You cannot stand your ground to defend yourself.  You have a legal duty to run away from criminals.  They can roam wherever they want.  You cannot. 

The man quoted in the article isn’t worried about the lack of cops.  He carries a gun for protection. Good for him.  But he’s in Georgia, which is a stand-your-ground state.  He can fight to protect himself on the street.  Minnesotans cannot.  

Yes, there is technically a loophole.  You don’t have to retreat if you can’t do it safely.  But guess what?  In order to use that loophole, you first must admit you killed the person, then the burden is on You to convince the judge and jury that you were allowed to kill him because you could not retreat, it wasn’t safe.  If they aren’t convinced, you’ve just pled guilty to murder.

Republicans tried to pass Stand Your Ground in Minnesota.  Democrats blocked it. 

I guess we know whose side they’re on.

Joe Doakes

Self defense reform – including the reforms commonly called “Stand Your Ground” – was passed by a bipartisan majority, but vetoed by Governor Flint Smith.

I know, I know, it was Dayton. Pffft.

And yes – it gives criminals an advantage on the street, and in court, where they are innocent until proven guilty, while citizens defending themselves effectively plead guilty and then hope their lawyer can overcome jury prejudice and the jury instructions from a judge who may have a less enlightened take in citizens’ rights but who has absolute power nonetheless.

The title is a reference to Jeff Snyder’s classic monograph “A Nation of Cowards“, by the way, a seminal article in the history of gun law reform from almost thirty years ago. It’s very germane. If you’ve never read it, do.

If It’s A Spurious Correlation, It Leads

Correlation doesn’t equal causation.

Every kid with a decent junior high science teacher knew that by, well, the end of junior high.

But Millennials didn’t have good science teachers. Seriously – how did medical schools find students, much less graduate doctors, over this past 15 years?

But I digress.

It also seems to be what passes for “Journalism” lately.

To wit – according to the WaPo, a spike in violent urban crime over the past three months “followed” the greatest wave in history of people…

  1. Standing in line, sometimes for hours
  2. Digging through diminished stock
  3. Taking a federal background check (sometimes, as in Minnesota, twice) and often jumping through other permitting hoops
  4. Buying a gun legally

“led to” a spike in violent crime.

Not dumb enough for you?

“We find that states where individuals are more likely to search for racial epithets experienced larger increases in June firearm sales,” they wrote, “even after adjusting for the personal security concerns that likely generated the March spikes in gun sales.” This is a new development: Running the same analysis on previous spikes in gun-buying yielded no correlation between racial animus and purchasing behavior.

No, it’s not the Babylon Bee. But it’s pretty damn close.

Question for the “reporters” involved: why are we so sure it’s not the other way around – that the crime wave didn’t cause the surge?

The death rate for media credibility is way ahead of the one for Covid.

Compare And Contrast

In watching yesterday’s kerfuffle about the couple in suburban Saint Louis who strapped up – to a horde of catcalls about their deeply flawed gun handling – against a bunch of “peaceful” protesters who’d just smashed their community’s gate – I can’t help but recall four scan weeks ago…

…when armed Americans were briefly all the rage, if a confused sort of rage, to our cultural betters…

…provided it’s the right people with the guns.

Take Your Pick

The left, last week: “People don’t need the police! People can defend their own communities!”

The left, this week after people defended their own community:

“Chilling”. The “protesters” were encroaching on private property after forcibly breaking down a gate. The implied threat could miss nobody who isn’t already insulated by Urban Progressive Privilege.

The only “chilling” part of this episode is the atrocious firearm-safety the couple are exhibiting; fingers on triggers, sweeping each other and people who aren’t immediate threats. Get some training, people.

And it’s instructive to note how “chilling” it wasn’t to the mainstream media last month, when stories about black neighborhoods and business owners strapping up to deter looters met with…uncomfortable acquiescence.

On The One Hand…

I’m rooting for the guy in this video who, attacked by small mob of “Anti”-Fa sympathizers in Albuquerque, including one who tried to beat him over the head with a skateboard, came up shooting:

Another video shows the man certainly tried to retreat:

So let’s go over the elements of a self-defense case (as best I know them, not being a lawyer or especially familiar with New Mexico law):

There was an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm – He was hit on the head with a skateboard, and the thugs – or as NPR refers to them, “protesters” – were shouting “Kill Him”. I call that a reasonable threat.

Reasonable Effort to Retreat – Looks like the man made more than a reasonable effort.

Used only the force needed to end the threat – And how. That pack of bullies turned into a bunch of sheep faster than Tim Walz discovering a new regulation.

Can’t be the aggressor – Might be the problem. According to the NPR story:

As protesters surrounding the statue chanted “Tear it down!” and one of them swung a pickax at the statue’s base in an effort to bring it down, a confrontation erupted between the demonstrators and a group of armed men.

“We are receiving reports about vigilante groups possibly instigating this violence,” Police Chief Michael Geier was quoted in a department tweet as saying. “If this is true will be holding them accountable to the fullest extent of the law, including federal hate group designation and prosecution.”

The inevitable “white supremacist” allegations are flying around. Of course, even people with unfashionable, even reprehensible, views have the right to self-defense. Berg’s 18th Law is in effect here.

Still and all, maybe some of these morons will realize that the next woman six or seven of them gang up on might be able to do the same. And society might just get a little more polite.

I’ll be following developments in this case.

Not Ready For Prime Time

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Looking at the SF article on armed citizens again – 

“As the car fills with the acrid scent of burning chemicals, Ellison tells his friend in the driver’s seat to pull over. Before they come to a stop, Ellison, 30, flings open the door and jumps out with a pistol in one hand and a small fire extinguisher in the other. He walks briskly down the street, scanning the block for the origin of the fumes.”

Even assuming he has a permit to carry, that’s “brandishing,” and it’s a crime.  What are you doing waving a gun around, one-handed?  What’s your target?  Where’s the imminent danger?  Why is that damned thing out of the holster???

His father’s the attorney general. That’s his legal justification, peasant.


“At one checkpoint, a young man nervously looked down the street as a car approached, his finger on the trigger of a semiautomatic rifle half-raised in front of him.”
Get Your Booger Hook Off The Bang Switch!!  What the hell is wrong with you?  Have you no firearms safety training at all? 

The author is PRAISING these idiots for running around the streets with loaded guns and no idea how to use them safely.

Every time a new group gets frightened enough to run out to buy guns – women, gays, trans – I make the same offer:  I will teach you how to use it, safely, for free.  Time to step up my game.  Whole lotta people desperately need help before somebody gets hurt from sheer stupidity.

Joe Doakes

There are a whole lot of people who’ve come over to the 2nd Amendment side this past few months. There are a lot of opportunities for us to show them how it’s done.

Although I’m not sure Jeremiah Ellison is going to be one of the ones who learns much.

Ready For An Apology

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The Washington Post, which endlessly editorializes in favor of stricter gun control laws and bans, writes approvingly of armed citizens carrying assault rifles, shotguns and pistols in the streets of Minneapolis. 

NAACP, which advocates strict gun control laws and bans, is organizing the armed citizen patrols.

Neither of these organizations come right out and say it, but by their actions, they’re basically conceding that I was right all along, and they were wrong. 

I am now prepared to accept their apologies.

Joe Doakes

The good news: we might be starting to see parts of the left (including, unfortunately, some of the worst parts) voting on this issue with their feet.

The bad news: all that energy is going to go into more bad ideas.

In The Past Week…

…I have gotten more furtive, almost samizdat, questions from liberal/progressive friends of mine about buying and carrying firearms than ever before. Other “out” shooters (or in my case, gun rights activists, since all my guns fell into Mille Lacs in 2018 and I’m terrified of them anyway) have reported the same. And on Saturday, the line out the door at Bill’s Gun Shop in Robbinsdale, while admittedly exacerbated by “social distancing” requirements, was still an hour long. To get in the door. Not to mention finding a firearm, and going through the paperwork, if applicable.

The opportunity is there for law-abiding gun owners to win a whooole lot of the support we’re going to need to weather what may well be a challenging decade in Minnesota.

Stay tuned for more.

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

My permit to carry expires in July.  I finished the class May 19th and
called the Sheriff for drop-off instructions on the 22nd.  Sorry, you
have to make an appointment to drop off your renewal application. 
Earliest date is June 9th.

Just called me today (June 3rd).  They have to re-schedule. They’ll be
on lock-down June 9th, I won’t be able to get into the building to drop
off the paperwork.  Soonest I can come is June 26th.

Seriously?  Look, it’s just dropping off paperwork, there’s nothing to
it.  I’ve had a permit to carry for years, my record is clean, it’s
utterly straight-forward.  Why can’t the paperwork be dropped off by
mail, or by email?  If I can’t come into the building, why can’t staff
come out for curbside service like Applebee’s?  Why is it so difficult
for government to do their jobs?

It’s almost as if Sheriff Fletcher is taking advantage of the Covid
crisis and the Floyd riots to intentionally make it difficult for people
to get their permits.  Which is weird, because I never got that vibe
from him before.  The last time he was involved with permitted carriers,
it was to offer us training which was controversial (because he used the
list of permit holders to invite us) but sensible (because if you’re
going to be carrying, you ought to be practicing).  It’s just weird.

Word to the wise – if your permit to carry is up soon, start the renewal
early!

Joe Doakes

Urban pols are not, as they say, wasting thecrisis.

Calculating Risk

The question “why does anyone need a thirty-round magazine?” is one BIg Gun Control likes to throw around among the uninformed.

To them, there is no valid answer.

As Minneapolis and Saint Paul sloooowly start bundling the last of our “Anti”-Fa rioters up and sending them back to college for summer term, it’s worth noting that the grabbers are wrong of course. There’s a pretty solid justification.

I’m going to answer you with a question. three, actually.

First: are you ever going to be attacked by someone who wants to kill you, then and there? If you answer “I have no idea“, that’s a perfectly valid, honest answer. Violent attacks – robberies, kidnappings, rapes, aggravated assaults, spree killings, terror attacks – are exceptionally rare. Rarer still if you have no criminal record, don’t associate with criminals, and don’t work in a business where a lot of criminals are part of the clientele. That accounts for the vast majority of people.

Not a single person who gets robbed, kidnapped, raped, suffers a home invasion, owns a business near a riot flashpoint, or is at a location where a spree killer decides to stage their blaze of glory, woke up that morning thinking “I bet I’m going to be the target of a violent incident today!“ Did they?

Second: if the person decides to attack you with the lethal force we mentioned above, and you decide to defend yourself, how hard is it going to be the end the threat to your life?: impossible to predict, right? Many robberies, assaults and rapes, and even a few spree killings , have been ended by a good guy pulling out a gun, with no shots fired. Sometimes an attacker falls over unconscious, or dead, after a punch to the face. On the other hand there are records of people who’ve been shot 20 times and still had the strength to shoot, stab or hit before they bled out. I know one story of a woman who barricaded herself and her kids in an attic during a home invasion; when the guy broke into the attic, she shot at him six times at a range of 2 feet, hitting them five times in the face and head – and he lived without a lot of complications ( other than a lengthy prison sentence). Alcohol, drugs and mental illness all affect this as well – drunk people are harder to deter from doing stupid things; people who are extremely high may not experience pain, even pain from a gunshot wound. There are cases of people who were very, very high who never noticed they’d been shot until they bled to death.

So the question is: how many shots (if it’s a gun you choose) will it take to stop one person from following through on trying to murder you? The answer, given the evidence we have seen above, is “0 to 20 shots – maybe”.

Bear in mind that, under stress, almost nobody hits their target with every shot. Even at close range. Even if you practice shooting a lot (although that helps) the police, in self-defense situations, hit with an average of about one shot in every six. Put another way, the police fire an average of 17 shots to end an engagement.

So – you don’t know how many hits you’re going to need to end a lethal or threat to you (or your family, or innocent bystanders), and you don’t know how many shots that you fire are going to hit the person who is trying to kill you.

That’s with one attacker.

Which brings us to the third question

Third: how many people will be trying to kill, Rob, attack, rape or kidnap you?: The scenarios above are predicated on one attacker. Can you predict how many people are going to attack you?

Before you answer, think of this past week. You’re a shopkeeper who runs afoul of a band of looters, a homeowner whose home some group decides to invade.

The riots have those scenarios front-and-center but even in “normal” times, terrible things can come in groups. In Saint Paul a few years back, there was a series of home invasions. Four people would break into a house, violently subdue any occupants who were present, and take what they wanted. Nobody died in that series of incidents – but other home invasions do lead to murder, almost always murder of unarmed people.

Remember – none of the victims woke up that morning thinking “I bet I’m going to have a violent home invasion today”.

Now – if you hear somebody kick in your door in at midnight, ask yourself – how many of them are there? Are they armed? Are they drunk or on some sort of mind altering substance that warps their perception of risk, danger, and/or pain? How will they react to someone resisting (or not resisting)?

You are not going to know. All you know is that there is a potentially lethal threat to your life down there. Maybe the sound of a pistol racking up will send all of them scampering from your house. Or maybe the sight of one of them falling over, gushing blood after you shoot one of them will send them running.

Or maybe you pull out your six shooter, and fire all six shots of the first attacker you see – leaving you holding an empty revolver while robbers two, three, and four come at you with baseball bats, ice picks and a shotgun.

So the answer to your question is “When we are responsible for defending ourselves, our families and our community from a violent threat to our lives and we can’t predict who is going to carry out that attack, how many of them there will be, and what it will take to deter/stop them, we want a magazine that is less likely to run out of ammunition before the attacker runs out of attack”.

I hope that answers your question.

Life In A Time Of Mayor Norton

This tweet came out from the Olmsted County sheriff’s office yesterday:

While Olmsted County is not controlled by the city of Rochester, the city is obviously the center of political gravity. And Kim Norton, as passive-aggressive an anti-gun zealot as ever blurted out a made-up statistic, most certainly either had something to do with this, or the DFL culture of the county that spawned her, spawned this culture of passive-aggressive petty tyranny as well.

Remember this at election time.

Open Letter To Glenn Beck

As I write this, Glenn Beck is interviewing Ben Dorr.   

I sent this email via the Beck show’s email link:

 


Mr. Beck,

I’m a talk show host, gun rights activist and conservative in Minnesota.

As I write this, Glenn is interviewing Ben Dorr.

The Dorr Brothers are hucksters. Gun Rights and pro-life groups and liberty-minded politicians in several states (most notably MN and IA) have condemned them as carpetbaggers who do nothing but raise money – which they pay to themselves.

You do your listeners a disservice by giving exposure to the Dorr brothers. They are, not to put too fine a point on it, a bunch of real-life Elmer Gantries.

They’ve been exposed repeatedly – not just by mainstream media, but by gun rights and pro-life groups.

Please, please, please – ask some questions of people who’ve dealt with the damage they do.

I can’t stress this enough – I implore you to distance yourself from the Dorrs, immediately. Money donated to them may as well be given to Michael Bloomberg and Planned Parenthood.


I urge you to do the same. Here’s Beck’s email link.

Carpetbaggers: The Big Time!

I’ve been writing about the Dorr Brothers – the Iowa-based scammers behind “Minnesota Gun Rights”, among many other potemkin 2nd Amendment, pro-life and pro-Trump “groups” – for a long time.

No – a very, very long time.

And I’ve written a lot about them.

No – I mean a lot. Including just about as much actual reporting as just about anyone in the field ever has (here’s an excellent summary of alternative-media coverage of the Dorrs, going back more than seven years).

But MPR’s Catherine Richert is taking the story mainstream again

Discord like this:

I reported for the first time in 2013 the Dorr Brothers’ pattern:

  • Move into a state.
  • Establish a social media presence.
  • Loudly and abrasively claim that Republican, pro-life and pro-gun legslators are “selling out” their supporters – apparently, by being in the same capitol building as their opponents?
  • That if their followers keep the money coming, and coming, and coming, then they’ll be part of an “uncompromising” approach that won’t “sell out” – but won’t actually do anything but make more Facebook videos.

Richert’s thread is excellent. It touches on some of the same shady business practices Fox9 found a couple years ago.

The story is even better – although one hopes that the mainstream media closes the circle and reports on the depth and depravity of the Dorr Brothers’ scam nationwide.

Now – in a state with an Attorney Generals’ office that focuses on “consumer fraud” like a dog focuses on a squirrel, why hasn’t Keith Ellison gone after these frauds?

More Guns. More Sun. Less Crime

It was a little over a year ago that Brazil – against the caterwauling of the caterwauling class – radically liberalized its gun laws, which had essentically been Chicago-like since the 1940s.  

The caterwaulers said liberalizing gun laws would result in Brazil – whose violent crime rate is about five times that of the US – getting, y’know, violent. 

It’s been almost a year.  What do you suppose happened?

Do I even need to explain it?   Violent crime is down in the vicinity of 22%:

Comparing changes between available months of 2019 and 2018 shows an average decrease of Total Violent Crime and Monthly Index at 22.25% and 23.04% respectively.

Since 2018 was already a low-crime year compared to 2015-2017, Jan – April 2019 violent crime number indicates that people are better off with the means to defend themselves. Brazil new gun policy is a step in the right direction.

Other than the loosening of gun restrictions, law enforcement taking harsher measures could also contributed to the lowering of violent crime.

It’s not entirely the gun.  Nobody said it would be; preserving order is one of government’s few legitimate jobs (if you’re a conservative), and Brazil’s corrupt post-socialist system has been notoriously bad at that for a long time.  An armed society without some means of preserving order might turn into the American frontier – or it might turn into South Central Los Angeles, depening on whose will to power gets satisfied. 

But, as predicted, it seems to be helping in Brazil. 

New, Miserable Regime

The Reverend Nancy Nord Bence led “Protect” MN for four gloriously inept years.

In those years, she never – not once – made a statement about guns, gun owners, gun crime, self-defense, gun hardware, gun laws, the Second Amendment, its history, its jurisprudence or its application that was simultaneously substantial, original and true.

This blog spent four years calling our her constant prevarication and fabulism. The content never ended

…well, until she “left” PM last month.

And now, we’re moving on. At least for a while. “Protect” MN has an “interim” director:

Lest anyone was in doubt about “P”M’s place in the Minnesota Non-Profit/Industrial Complex, Mueller was an executive at “Planned Parenthood” for ten years. She’s got a background in “Public Health”, although apparently not the kind of pubic health that’s of any use during epidemics.

Welcome, Ms. Mueller. When you start lying, we’ll be right here waiting for you.

By the way – about that “if you’re in a home with guns and feel unsafe, reach out…” bit?

What if you’re in a home without ’em and feel unsafe? Or feel safe because you have ’em? Can I call?

I’ll try to invite her on the NARN.

Definitions

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

New bill in the legislature.

Does “knows” mean “has actual knowledge” or does it mean “didn’t have actual knowledge, but under the totality of the circumstances, after reasonable inquiry such as a background check, should have known and therefore is presumed to have known, so it’s okay to punish him as if he had actually known the buyer was prohibited.”

Joe Doakes

I think in this case it means “whatever an ambitious prosecutor with ambitions in the DFL wants it to mean.

Absolute Moral Authority

Patrick Neville – a survivor of the Columbine Massacre, and a Colorado State Representative – is pushing a bill that’d allow qualified Colorado school staff to carry their legal firearms for self-defense:

“The only thing that is going to stop murderers intent on doing harm is to give good people the legal authority to carry a gun to protect themselves and our children,” Neville said in a statement, according to The Hill.

“More of my friends would still be alive today.”

The bill put forward by Neville, a Republican, would let teachers with concealed weapons permits carry guns at the state’s schools in an attempt to halt future shootings.

Neville introduced the same bill last year, which failed.

“Unfortunately, the current system continues to leave our children as sitting targets for criminals intent on doing harm,” he said.

Big Left, of course, only grants a platform to the right survivors.

But this sort of thing needs to be pushed in front of the public early and often.

Blob

I’ve seen a few Democrats on me on social media saying they thought Joe Biden’s performance with the auto workers the other day it was a good episode, and a sign of strength.

I was truly, truly not convinced.

I think I have really, really good reason not to be:

If Biden now has a reputation as a champion of gun confiscation — and if construction workers in Michigan are asking him about it, it suggests he does — he is going to have a hard time winning back the voters that Trump peeled away from the Obama coalition. Barack Obama didn’t say much about guns at all until his second term had begun, and, once he did, he presided over the loss of the Senate, the loss of the White House, and a record-breaking period of civilian firearms sales. Judging by their rhetoric, Democrats seem to believe that the center of gravity has changed on this question since then. But the evidence for this is scant. The State of Virginia is run solely by Democrats — Democrats who were bankrolled by Michael Bloomberg and who promised to pass restrictive gun control as their first priority. They failed, and sparked a massive backlash in the process. Do we think the playing field looks different in Michigan?

In a way, Biden‘s outburst serves as a Rorschach blob; Democrats see a Trump like outburst a candidly unguarded rhetoric; conservative to see a working stiff cornering a candidate with wildly contradictory messages on the issue, and the candidate flailing.

I’m going to stick with “flailing“.

Our Potential Next President

Joe Biden tells 2nd Amendment supporter he’s, er, “full of shit”.

“You are actively trying to end our Second Amendment right and take away our guns,” the worker said to Biden, according to video captured by CBS reporter Bo Erickson.

Biden immediately interjected, saying “You’re full of shit,” and implored those gathered to listen to his clarification.

Then, he shows that he is, indeed, full of…

…well, you know. Specifically FOS bits are emphasized by me:

I support the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment — just like right now, if you yelled ‘fire,’ that’s not free speech,” Biden continued. “And from the very beginning — I have a shotgun, I have a 20-gauge, a 12-gauge. My sons hunt. Guess what? You’re not allowed to own any weapon. I’m not taking your gun away at all.” [Which is it? Ed.]

The man cited “viral” videos surrounding his claim that Biden is against the Second Amendment, saying the former vice president was “trying to take our guns.”

“I did not say that. I did not say that,” Biden repeated. “It’s a viral video like the other ones they’re putting out that are simply a lie.”

“This is not OK, alright?” the man shot back.

Biden replied, “Don’t tell me that, pal, or I’m going to go outside with your ass.”

“You’re working for me, man!” the worker said.

“I’m not working for you,” Biden said. “Don’t be such a horse’s ass.”

But then, Biden has also told us he’s going to put Beto “Hell Yeah, I’m Coming For Your Guns” O’Rourke in charge of gun policy, so it’d seem he’s full of…

…well, you know where this leads, right?

The Right Profile

Michael Bloomberg is out of the Presidential race. There’s $700 million that won’t go toward anti-gun groups, anyway. Of course, he’s always got more.

He also left the good guys this estimable gift – a quote that sums up every “progressive’s” view of what guns are about – in this case, on why he, a man who would disarm Americans the same way he’d deprive them of 32 ounce pop, deserves a bunch of armed security guards:

“Look, I probably get 40 or 50 threats every week, OK, and some of them are real. That just happens when you’re the mayor of New York City or you’re very wealthy and if you’re campaigning for president of the United States,” Bloomberg replied. “You get lots of threats. So, I have a security detail, I pay for it all myself, and . . . they’re all retired police officers who are very well trained in firearms.”

“A well-paid security detail being necessary to secure the well-being of the ruling class against unruly proles, the right to keep and bear arms shall be carefully managed”.

(And if those “retired police” are Bloomie’s former employees, I’m not feeling nearly as safe as he thinks I should be, either in their coolness and discernment or restraint).