Gun Nut Sends Ricin to Mayor Bloomberg

The New York Times

The first letter was opened at a New York City mail center in Lower Manhattan on Friday, the police said. Although staff members at the mail center do not appear to have become ill, several police officers who came into contact with the letter’s contents “indicated some mild symptoms the next day, including diarrhea,” and they are being treated in hospitals, the New York Police Department’s spokesman, Paul J. Browne, said on Wednesday afternoon. “They’re being checked out as a precaution.” 

The second letter, which was opened on Sunday in Washington, was addressed to Mark Glaze, the director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group Mr. Bloomberg helps run and finances, officials said. Mr. Glaze opened the letter, an official said. No injuries were reported, Mr. Browne said.

Both letters were identical in content, bore references to the debate over gun regulation and contained written threats to Mayor Bloomberg, Mr. Browne said. “It’s threatening, and it’s very clearly about one issue,” one official said of the letters. 

Both letters had a Louisiana postmark, said one official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing. 

Ricin can be made from castor beans, and a quantity as small as a grain of salt can be lethal if ingested. 

In April, a former taekwondo instructor from Tupelo, Miss., was arrested on charges of sending ricin-laced letters to the president, a United States senator and a local judge. The letters sent to Washington were intercepted in mail sorting facilities serving the White House and the Capitol. 

Louisiana and Mississippi, always Louisiana and Mississippi.

The only surprising thing is that this doesn't happen more often. I mean, Bloomberg is a threat, right?.  The policies he proposes are nothing short of a lethal threat which true gun-rights supporters have a moral obligation to resist by any means.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

Bloomberg's Frist Target - Senator Mark Pryor (D - AR)

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg speaks at a news conference at City Hall on April 25. The billionaire mayor has been spending from his personal fortune to provide a "political counterweight to the NRA," his policy adviser says. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

NPR

Bloomberg's first target is a Democratic senator facing a tough fight for re-election in 2014: Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Pryor knows he's a marked man. Whether he's actually sweating it is the question. He's said it before, and he's saying it now: He doesn't take gun advice from the mayor of New York City. He listens to Arkansas.

"I guess the way I look at it [is] it's just another one of the outside groups that's going to try to come in," he says. "I think, you know, honestly, that's what's wrong with politics today is all these outside groups come in and try to do that. But I can't stop it from happening."
 
Pryor was one of four Democrats who voted against a proposal to expand background checks last week, and Bloomberg, the founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, is trying to make sure Pryor pays. Bloomberg plans to pour money into months of TV ads, radio ads and mailings to defeat the Arkansas senator. His group says it has spent $12 million in the months since the Newtown, Conn., school shootings on field campaigns and commercials across the country.

"This is just a toe in the water," says John Feinblatt, Bloomberg's chief policy adviser. And toe in the water is right — this is a guy Forbes estimates to be worth about $27 billion. Bloomberg will also be doling out money to help re-election campaigns of lawmakers who voted for gun control — both Democrats and Republicans.

"The mayor and others are going to provide the political counterweight to the NRA," Feinblatt says. "It has had the field to itself for decades, and that has to stop. And that time has come."

What do you think?  Is Sen. Pryor as unconcerned as he says?

Please leave a comment.

Mayor Bloomberg Makes a Mockery of the Law - Or Not

James King wrote a scathing attack of Mayor Bloomberg for The Village Voice.  He accused the mayor of making a mockery of the law for sending Plaxico to jail but not the Marine from Indiana.

To me it sounds like a thinly veiled Bloomberg-hate piece. The two cases demonstrate a fair application of the law.  The author himself pointed out the major reason why.

There are a few differences in the two cases -- for starters, Jerome didn't accidentally shoot himself at a crowded night club.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Mayor Bloomberg Fighting the Good Fight

Keith Olbermann on Bloomberg

via Democratic Underground

Well, at least Mayor Bloomberg got the gun control part right.

Bloomberg Addresses Congress

The New York Times reports.

Among other things, the bill would increase penalties for states that do not properly turn over records of people who are already barred by federal law from owning a gun. The bill would also require federal agencies to certify twice a year to the U.S. Attorney General that they have submitted all relevant records to the background-check data base. Senator Charles E. Schumer recently introduced similar legislation in the Senate.

It is becoming increasingly clear that gun owners who oppose this do not have a leg to stand on.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Bloomberg's FixGunChecks.com

via Penigma

What could possibly be objectionable in what he says?

Bloomberg on the Loophole

via The Raw Story via Norwegianity.

Also recommended by Microdot.

Bloomberg - Eloquent and Correct

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bloomberg's Statement

When we mentioned this the other day, TS said, "I’ll tell you what the statement won’t be. It won’t be, “we need to open the NICS for private use”."  He was certainly right about that.  

Today after reviewing the statement, Sebastian summed it up in his typically lop-sided way. " It’s basically just another call for banning private sales."

Here's part of the statement.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan coalition of more than 550 mayors, proposes that the U.S. fulfill the intent of the 1968 law by fixing the broken background check system.

            First, the system should contain all the records of felony convictions, domestic violence incidents, drug history, and determinations of mental illness that would prevent those categories of troubled people from buying guns. The new Congress should set a goal of getting this job finished within three years.

            Second, Congress should subject every gun sale to a background check by closing the loopholes that permit guns to be sold without them. Licensed gun dealers are covered by the Brady Bill. But “occasional sellers,” for example those that sell firearms at gun shows, through classified ads or even on the internet, do not have to conduct background checks. The only way to prevent guns from falling into the hands of violent criminals, the mentally unstable, and other already prohibited dangerous persons is through a comprehensive national background check system with no loopholes. Reasonable exceptions would include, for example, transfers of guns within families, or by wills, or to people who have a valid state-issued gun permit issued within the last five years that meets or exceeds the Federal background check standard.

What's your opinion? Would fixing the database and requiring background checks on all transfers be a good thing or not?

Please leave a comment.

Bloomberg Promises Announcement

Mayor Bloomberg's office issued a statement that on Monday there would be a major announcement on "illegal guns and the federal background check system."

"The more we learn, the more it becomes clear that this case is fundamentally about a mentally ill drug abuser who had access to guns who shouldn’t have," Bloomberg said of the Tucson shooting at the Jan. 11 meeting.

"As this case makes terribly clear, deadly gaps [in the nation's gun laws] still remain."

Yes, indeed "deadly gaps" exist not to mention a couple of loopholes.

What's your opinion?  Any guesses as to what the statement will be.

Please leave a comment.

Michael Bloomberg - Gun Control Hero

Bloomberg Supports the Mosque at Ground Zero

The New York Post reports on the mayor's statement in support of the building of an Islamic Mosque and study center near the site fo the Twin Towers.

In his fiercest defense yet of the mosque proposed near Ground Zero, Mayor Bloomberg declared yesterday that it must be allowed to proceed because the government "shouldn't be in the business of picking" one religion over another.

"I think it's fair to say if somebody was going to try, on that piece of property, to build a church or a synagogue, nobody would be yelling and screaming," the mayor said.

"And the fact of the matter is that Muslims have a right to do it, too."

Placing the proposed mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site has led to an outcry from opponents, including family members of 9/11 victims, who contend the holy place at 45 Park Place would defile the memories of those who perished in the worst terror attack in US history.

What's your opinion? Would a Moslem Mosque "defile the memories of those who perished in the worst terror attack in US history?"

Please leave a comment.

Bloomberg is Not the Enemy of Gun Rights

FishyJay sent me this New York Times article about Mayor Bloomberg's plans to streamline the system for obtaining gun permits in NYC.

The Bloomberg administration announced on Friday that it was moving to simplify the process for New Yorkers to obtain gun permits, thus speeding up a set of byzantine licensing requirements that gun-rights advocates have long criticized as among the most restrictive in the country.

Now, that doesn't sound like the ogre gun rights advocates like to make him.

A spokesman for the mayor said on Friday that despite Mr. Bloomberg’s continuing fight, he had never taken issue with legal gun ownership, a perspective that Colin Weaver, of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, said he was in sync with.

“The mayor is focused on crime control, not gun control,” said the Bloomberg spokesman, Jason Post. “He has no problem with people who want to go hunting. The issue is illegal guns that are killing people and, all too often, police officers.”

"The mayor is focused on crime control, not gun control." Who could object to that?

Even Alan Jura said it “sounds like progress.” What's your opinion? Wait, let me guess. Some will say it's too vague and won't change anything, that the system will continue to be too subjective. Others will say, the statement is political smoke and doesn't mean anything. And of course, we'll have some who insist Bloomberg is the enemy and we can't trust anything he says.

What do you think? Myself, I believe it when Bloomberg says he has nothing against legitimate gun ownership and that he's interested in crime control not gun control.

Please leave a comment.

More on Bloomberg's Terror Gap

ScrappleFace posted a quote of Bloomberg's that I couldn't resist.

“The FBI ought to be able to block the sale of these items, and perhaps others, to American citizens who have not yet been charged with a crime, but who are viewed as potential threats by the FBI,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “Anyone who opposes closing the ‘terror gap’ is essentially an accessory to terrorism…a virtual member of al Qaeda, and a threat to our national security. In fact, opposition to my sensible proposal ought to provide grounds for putting someone on the no-buy list.”

Is it any wonder that hizzoner is shaping up as the number one antagonist of the gun rights crowd? It takes extreme measures to fight extreme people.

In fact, opposition to my sensible proposal ought to provide grounds for putting someone on the no-buy list.

Now, that should be the quote of the day on many of the gun blogs. What do you think?

More on the Terror Gap

The New York Times published an op-ed about the Congressional discussions about closinig the terror gap. This has been pretty well covered by both sides, but this article contained some interesting points.

Yes, if you are on the terrorist watch list, the authorities can keep you from getting on a plane but not from purchasing an AK-47. This makes sense to Congress because, as Graham accurately pointed out, “when the founders sat down and wrote the Constitution, they didn’t consider flying.”

The subject of guns turns Congress into a twilight zone. People who are perfectly happy to let the government wiretap phones go nuts when the government wants to keep track of weapons permits. A guy who stands up in the House and defends the torture of terror suspects will nearly faint with horror at the prospect of depriving someone on the watch list of the right to purchase a pistol.

“We make it so easy for dangerous people to get guns. If it’s the Second Amendment, it doesn’t matter if they’re Osama bin Laden,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

What do you think about that? How could people who accept illegal wiretapping of American citizens be so upset about the Constitutional implications of this proposal?

Please leave a comment.

Bloomberg on the "Terror Gap"

The Huffington Post reports on the latest efforts by Mayor Michael Bloomberg to elicit support in Congress to close the so-called "terror gap."

With his city still on edge over this weekend's attempted truck-bombing in Times Square, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg heads to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to give Congress a piece of his mind on a closely related issue.

Bloomberg is upset about a federal loophole that, amazingly enough, allows people on the FBI's Terrorist Watchlist to legally buy guns and explosives.

Current federal law specifies only a limited number of reasons the government can cite to block the purchase of guns or explosives -- and being in the FBI's database of those "known or reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity" isn't one of them.

Many people are concerned that the government puts people on the watch list too easily and sometimes for alternative reasons. I agree these are concerns which much be addressed. But the NRA position seems a bit paranoid to me.

"H.R. 2159 isn't about making America safe from terrorists; it's about giving the federal government new, arbitrary authority to prohibit loyal Americans from exercising their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. Cloaking it in terms of 'national security' doesn't change that fact."

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Down WithTyranny

Down With Tyranny wrote a wonderful post drawing on several recent sources. The title says it all: "Is it time yet for sane gun advocates to separate from the total crazies?"

As regular readers know, I'm not a big fan of Mayor Bloomberg, but when he's right, he's right.

The dark reality that the gun loons don't like to talk about is what a big business guns are. What we're getting here is, of course, the brilliant if sub-imbecilic crock of doody concocted by the NRA to turn the U.S. into its private Murder Inc.: Guns don't kill; people kill.

What's your opinion? Could the impassioned resistance be attributed to the fact that guns are "big business?" Does it start from the gun manufacturers themselves and trickle down? By the time it gets to the grass roots gun owners it's all about freedom and rights, but at its origins it's just market share and numbers?

Do you find it significant that critics of Mayor Bloomberg, such as the author of Down with Tyranny, find his gun control position to be right? Do you think that could apply to gun owners as well? Could it be that the vocal passionate ones represent only a small percentage of the whole? That would make their claiming such vast numbers misleading, as if every gun owner was in agreement with their positions?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Bloomberg Won't Be Going to West Virginia

The Charleston Daily Mail published a report on the law in West Virginia making Bloomberg-type sting operations of gun dealers illegal. Thanks to FatWhiteMan for the link.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - New York City has sent out undercover investigators to catch gun dealers violating background check laws. But West Virginia lawmakers want to make it a crime for investigators to conduct such sting operations in West Virginia.

The Legislature passed a measure Saturday that targets anyone who tries to entice a firearms dealer or private seller under circumstances that the individual knows is unlawful.

The bill addresses a tactic employed by New York during stings conducted last year at seven guns shows in Tennessee, Ohio and Nevada.

The bill had also proposed allowing felons and others otherwise barred from having guns to possess antique firearms. But the House Judiciary Committee removed that provision, and the Senate agreed to the change Saturday.

Why do thet need a special law for this? I thought people told me this was already illegal activity? What's wrong with these pro-gun types? Do they want to make this "illegaler?" Why do they need more laws when they have the Constitution on their side?

Perhaps they were wrong about this being illegal. Perhaps with the cooperation of local authorities, Mayor Bloomberg was within his rights to investigate the provenance of guns associated with crime in his city. But, I guess he won't be doing it in West Virginia.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

New York Marks Fewest Murders Ever

That's the headline on CNN, New York Marks Fewest Murders Ever.

Calling a sharp drop in overall violence throughout America's most populous city "one for the record books," New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced this week that 2009 saw historic crime-rate declines across the city's five boroughs.

The declines occurred in nearly every crime category, including the "lowest number of murders ever," Bloomberg said Monday.

According to the mayor's office, there have been 461 homicides to date on Monday in 2009. That number is down nearly 11 percent from the same time a year ago, with 516 murders recorded in 2008. Bloomberg said 2009 is on track to have the fewest murders in New York City's history since reliable recordkeeping began in 1963.

This is certainly a wonderful achievement, one which derives from several factors.

The mayor said the drop in New York's crime rate can be attributed to a combination of using new technologies and strong management, using statistics in police planning and responses, adequately funding the department and focusing resources to address problem areas.

Along with stringent gun laws, regulations and enforcement mechanisms, the combination of all these strategies "have helped to substantially reduce the level of violence on our streets," Bloomberg said.

"Along with stringent gun laws," is the way Bloomberg puts it. The gun bloggers on the other hand seem to think it has only to do with improved policing techniques and general trends.

What's your opinion? Do the strict gun laws in New York contribute to the decreasing violence? If some of the "feeder" states had similar restrictions and the ciminal importing of weapons were curtailed, do you think the crime rate in NYC would go even lower?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.