There is much ado about Michael Bloomberg’s efforts in Maine to limit Second Amendment rights through the ballot box. He proposes a law, that will be voted on by the Maine voters in November, to implement “Universal Background Checks.” Most people don’t bother ever reading the actual law and, if at all, will read what the ballot says, which is incomplete at best and a bold-face lie at its root.
Few will also take the time to fully vet and comprehend who “Everytown for Gun Safety” is and what their real purpose is in getting a disarmament measure passed in the State of Maine.
Therefore, any and all efforts to pass or defeat a disarmament bill, seem as though they will be relegated to talking points and superficial discussions about left and right paradigms and who’s side holds truth.
The Washington Post published an opinion piece last November about Bloomberg’s “Everytown” lobby group, and how two possible ballot initiatives, Maine and Nevada, would seriously impede Second Amendment rights. The article is a good read and spells out in pretty good detail how certain aspects of this proposed law would effect many more things than whether or not background checks are expanded upon the populace. (Note: If you follow the link to the Washington Post site, where the article is archived, you will have to give them your email address to keep reading. Sorry! They need money too I guess.)
The Post’s article focuses only on the issue of how Bloomberg’s bill would effect Second Amendment rights, including self defense and firearms safety training. This is all very true stuff, as near as I can determine upon examination of the text of the proposed ballot initiative for Maine. But there is another related issue with this proposal that I have not read or heard about from anybody else. Please consider.
David Trahan, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), posted a link to the Washington Post opinion piece on the Facebook page for SAM. Trahan commented: “The law [Bloomberg’s ballot initiative] is not about expanding background checks. It’s about managing how we use guns.”
Well, yes. That’s right and it’s much more than that. But let’s get to the other issue I’m hinting at.
To do this, let’s set the “Wayback Machine” to November 2, 2004 when the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) (not your local humane society) anchored an effort in placing on the November ballot a proposal to, “ban…using traps, bait, and dogs to hunt bears.” That initiative was defeated. For a considerable period of time after the election, all that I ever heard about this effort was the HSUS tried to take too much at one time. It seemed that the general consensus, at least what I was hearing, was that if HSUS had gone after just trapping of bears, they would have won. Of course that would have been followed by banning dogs and eventually all hunting of bears…..and then?
Knowing that all animal rights and environmental groups are well-funded, tightly organized and with more patience than perhaps your average bear (oooh, sorry about the pun), it seemed plausible to me that the next time – and there would be a next time – HSUS wouldn’t go for the jugular. Instead, they would bleed their prey to death.
From information that I had access to at the time, I really believed, when it was first announced that HSUS was taking up the cross for another go at ending bear hunting, they would only go after trapping…this time. I was wrong, and I really don’t know what happened in which HSUS thought they had a chance at winning the whole ball of wax this time. I think this was their mistake…a serious one.
There is a certain amount of what is often referred to as, incrementalism, that goes on when one individual or group attempts to force others to take up their, often progressive, lifestyles. It’s easy to see the incrementalism that has taken place since the passage of the Second Amendment. It’s one of the most attacked rights, under the Bill of Rights. A “right to keep and bear arms” now is replete with more restrictions and limitations than a straitjacket.
If we look closer at the fascist Bloomberg’s proposed law, for those willing to read the law and see the straitjacket restrictions and limitations it contains, rational thinking would conclude that Bloomberg is going to far. I’m sure there are those who support “universal background checks,” whatever that is, who may be angry or fearful that, because Bloomberg has been stupid and greedy, this law will never pass. There are also opponents who are probably glad that Bloomberg, like HSUS before them, is being stupid and seeking too many limits to gun ownership.
So, is Bloomberg that stupid and greedy? I don’t think so. I know he got where he is today because he’s at least smart enough to side with, and not against, the ruling establishment. He is one of the connected insiders and, as such, he’s not alone in his quest in Maine to rid that state of guns. As Maine goes, so goes the nation? Hmmm.
Therefore, it is my contention, that Bloomberg – that is those with the legal brains and training in dealing with the public, psychology and propagandizing (Tavistock trained) – intentionally wrote the proposed bill for a greater purpose than, “managing how we use guns.”
It is Bloomberg’s agenda (whose agenda is it really?) to rid the entire U.S. of private gun ownership. It’s the one big deterrent that is prohibiting full implementation of the New World Order/One World Government. Americans like to call this “globalization.” Bloomberg has patience, time and lots and lots of money.
The ballot initiative, as written, is a test model. He is using it to not only see how far he can go right now, but how far he can go next time…and there will be a next time. If he is lucky enough (from his perspective) to get this “universal background check” passed, it will be clear sailing for him from that point forward. We can expect a nationwide initiative at “universal background checks.” If not this time, next time, armed with the fodder the Maine public is providing.
As media outlets, along with the leaders of the sporting industry, i.e. Sportman’s Alliance of Maine, have a debate about Bloomberg’s Question 3, responses to this debate will set the stage for the next round of raping of our rights. The responses will tell Michael Bloomberg just how much Maine people will tolerate, how much more of the Second Amendment rights they are willing to give up for him and his fascists.
I have not read anywhere, in any of this debate, why the Second Amendment has to provide a background check in order to exercise a guaranteed right. What other right in the Bill of Rights requires people to undergo a background check in order to exercise that right? I thought so. We know from court cases that forcing citizens to get a license or pay a fee, etc. to exercise a right, is unconstitutional – or at least can be supported by previous case laws.
The Second Amendment is being systematically and incrementally destroyed. As long as we the people are ready, willing and able to participate in setting the limitations to our own rights, what is there in our future as a free society? None. The message to Bloomberg, and all others, should be that not only are we not interested in giving up more of our rights, but we working very hard to get rid of the limitations stood before us now.
I’d like to see the debate turn away from providing the fodder for Bloomberg and his “Everytown” fascists, and get back to a discussion about why the Second Amendment is the only Right that is not a right.