Cowboy Confessional

Names are often revealing.

Take these two words as a case study.  The dictionary declares that “bloom” means “a flourishing, healthy condition; the time or period of greatest beauty, artistry, etc.”  It also notes that “berg” is short for “iceberg”, a frozen, desolate and destructive entity.  Thus, Bloomberg is that which coldly crushes everything healthy.

(If you think my treatment of New York’s Bloomberg herein is cold and dismissive, just wait until Sunday when Shooting The Bull is released and flip instantly to chapter eleven.)

Bloomberg’s buncombe buddy, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, holds affinity with Michael’s dislike of freemen or freewomen having access to firearms.  While Bloomberg spearheads a misleading campaign concerning “illegal guns” (as opposed to the gang members that Michael lets roam his city), Chuck perpetually proffers legislation that promises salvation while leading the Devil directly to your back door.

Take Schumer’s most recent assault on sanity, the misnamed Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011.  Based on the inaccurate allegation that criminals get their guns from otherwise reputable sources, Chuck’s bill seeks to create a de facto firearm registration system for when otherwise legal and law abiding folk sell a surplus pistol betwixt them.  The law would effectively require every firearm sale between consenting adults to be recorded, logged, and your personal firearm owning info sent to Washington for permanent record keeping (see section 202 for details).  Since world history (and New York history too) are case studies in registration leading to confiscation of firearms, the noble sounding title of Chuck’s bill masks his uglier objective.

Schumer’s subterfuge is part of a broad campaign to hoodwink Americans.  Bloomberg has been banking that the same bunko will effectively ban gun shows, which are amazing examples of a non-problem.  The Bureau of Justice Statistics tells us that fewer than 1% of guns used in crimes come from gun shows.  Yet Michael campaigns mightily to regulate such events and thus regulate them out of existence.  Indeed, this passage from my forthcoming book Shooting The Bull shows Bloomberg’s BS in aromatic detail.

Buried in Bloomberg’s bromide is an important question, one which the gun control industry declines to ask or answer: Why would a career criminal bother going to a gun show when they are on a first-name basis with their neighborhood underground dealers?  Those pesky bean counters at the Bureau of Justice Statistics, once they finally let incarcerated felons get back to shanking and shower rape, reported that 39% of felons obtained their crime guns from street sources, and just as many bought, traded or stole them from family or friends. When 78% of crime guns can be found in your slum, why bother traveling to an event littered with cops and ornery NRA members?

Which nicely brings us back to Bloomberg’s senile senate inmate, Chuck Schumer. Chuck’s legislation, comical in most ways, works on the quaint notion that criminal types will register their firearms as Schumer’s statute summons.  They have little need.  Not only is breaking laws (like Chuck’s) part of a thug’s job description, but the Supreme Court declared that criminals don’t have to register their guns (Haynes vs. U.S.).  Since most violent crime is committed by repeat offenders who are already prohibited from possessing even a bullet, odd are they won’t even consider Schumer’s mandate.

What is most interesting is how Schumer and Bloomberg embarked on their campaigns in near-unison.  As the Catalog of Canards in Shooting The Bull tells us, this is an inelegant form of political misinformation called:

The Lie of Synchronicity: Creating the appearance of mass, spontaneous mutual consensus to cause the public to believe there is an urgent issue to be resolved.

With Schumer peddling prevarication wrapped as ‘fixing gun checks’, and Bloomberg parading about the country effectively admitting he has failed in his duty to keep New York gangs under control, we see an orchestrated initiative to convince the otherwise uninformed populace that there is a problem that requires surrendering freedom to fix.

That is the first rule of detecting political perjury.  If someone wants to legislatively remove your property or freedoms, odds are they are lying to you.  Then again, if either Bloomberg or Schumer have their mouths agape, the same probability exists.

Tags:

This entry was posted by Guy Smith on Wednesday, April 27th, 2011 at 7:11 pm and is filed under Buncombe, Gun control, Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.