“EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY”: BLOOMBERG’S BLUEPRINT FOR DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

Michael Bloomberg has a slick new website for his antigun group, “Everytown for Gun Safety.” The NY Times provides a link to it in an April 25th Article by Jeremy Peters, “Republican Resigns From Bloomberg Gun Safety Group.”  Jeremy Peters has written extensively about Bloomberg's antigun agenda these last several days and the Arbalest Quarrel has critiqued them. This is our latest critique, dealing with Peters' Article that may be found here: republican resigns from Bloomberg gun safety group. For a visual on Bloomberg's "Everytown" group website, click the link: everytown.org. The website’s development and build must have cost Bloomberg a bundle. But, he can afford it. One of the site’s webpages uses hypnotic patterns of lines and shapes. These grab your attention. The webpage is a kaleidoscope of fade-ins and fade-outs. Suggestive propaganda devices loom and bloom. The logo itself is a wondrous example of advertising genius. The visitor sees a stylized American Flag. The stripes’ colors are an unusual turquoise and pale red. Bloomberg knows he can spend his dollars wisely or fruitlessly. He's pulled all the stops with his "Everytown" website. The site sets forth a single theme and focus: guns cause crime; guns hurt people; so let's get rid of the guns. And it's a subterfuge. Bloomberg’s main targets are the NRA and legislators who support the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” A photograph of individuals, young and old of both sexes, dominates fully one-half the site’s home page, above the fold. The expressions of these dupes -- Bloomberg's props -- are virtually and curiously identical. The countenances are grim, slightly sad. The photographer must have taken several photo shots to get it right. A caption appears below the photograph, just below the fold, in upper and lower case letters: “NOT OUR WORDS: Survivors of Gun Violence Take on the Gun Lobby.”The same message percolates through the site, taking different forms. But the Group’s principal aim appears on the “WHO WE ARE” link. It boils down to this: defeat the Gun Lobby – a/k/a the NRA. The “Everytown” group conveys through words and graphics the idea that it seeks to protect communities and that the “gun lobby” doesn’t. It says, “change has been thwarted by the Washington gun lobby and by leaders who refuse to take common-sense steps that will save lives.” The site makes no reference to the Second Amendment. Nor does the site bother to mention how guns in the hands of the right people -- law-abiding citizens -- do save lives and have saved lives. You will notice a subliminal message in the photograph that dominates the home page of the "Everytown for Gun Safety" website.The photograph's basic message is that Americans are victims and must play the role of victims. The photograph says, "you don't have to depend on your own survival skills and you shouldn't have to depend on your own survival skills." It says, "you don't need a gun for protection." It says, "if no one has a gun, then, violent acts won't occur." It says, "trust the police; they will safeguard your life and that of your family." It says, the Government will protect you." It says, "place your faith in 'Everytown;' I, Michael Bloomberg, have the expertise, intelligence, foresight, and clout to make the best decisions for you when it comes to your personal safety and the safety of your loved ones!" By the way, the term ‘everytown,’ first appeared in a science fiction story by the writer, H.G. Wells. The story’s title is: “The Shape of Things to Come.” Wells, an Englishman and socialist, was a prolific writer of social commentary in the first half of the twentieth century. He’s better known for his science fiction. Popular stories like “The Time Machine” and “The War of the Worlds” often come to mind when the name H.G. Wells crops up. A lesser known work, “The Shape of Things to Come,” is about a monolithic technological power waging war on backward tribes of people living in a place called, Everytown. The term has become part of our vernacular, suggestive of the average community. And clearly Bloomberg wishes to convey the impression that his “Everytown” represents the average American community. But, if the Everytown antigun group is so wonderful and has the best interests of Americans at heart, why would Tom Ridge, Homeland Security secretary under President George W. Bush, wish to resign from its Board? But why did Ridge join the Board in the first place? The NY Times Article doesn’t address that question. What we do learn is that Ridge resigned unexpectedly. Ridge purportedly told the Group he couldn’t keep his commitment. He gives his reason in the NY Times Article. “‘When I signed on as an adviser to Everytown, I looked forward to a thoughtful and provocative discussion about the toll gun violence takes on Americans. . . . After consultation with Everytown, I have decided that I am uncomfortable with their expected electoral work.’” The Times continues: “Mr. Bloomberg said last week that he would work to defeat Republicans and Democrats alike who opposed gun control. He said his goal was to build a group formidable enough to take on the National Rifle Association.” That assertion may hint at Ridge’s concern. But Ridge must certainly have known this. We ask, "what more did Ridge learn about “Everytown” that made him so uneasy? What, in fact, did Ridge learn that troubled him about Bloomberg’s strategies? Did Bloomberg fail to keep Ridge informed of Bloomberg's antigun tactics and strategies that -- once implemented -- would serve to fracture the very fabric of our Bill of Rights and of our society?We may wish to consider these questions in the broader context of Bloomberg’s personal ambitions and in the context of his power to manipulate Congress and the mainstream media. And we must not dismiss out of hand the possibility Bloomberg may be in league with other powerful interests, both foreign and domestic, who seek to undermine the United States Constitution in general and the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights in particular. The expressed concern over gun violence is almost certainly a subterfuge, a sleight of hand – messaging directed to the American public that cloaks a more sinister aim. And Ridge may have deciphered that aim and wanted nothing to do with it. Granted: this is speculation, but Bloomberg’s one-dimensional, simplistic messaging rings hollow and opens the door to serious speculation over his personal motives and secretive goals.True, Bloomberg may want, on a simplistic level, to curb gun violence.  But who doesn’t? That registers easily on the public conscience. And the mainstream media assists him in the endeavor. So, he is able to hide behind the plausibility of it. And, we may debate him on the causes of it. Unfortunately, Bloomberg doesn’t wish to debate the causes of criminal gun violence. That, likely, is not his salient concern. And the mainstream media doesn’t demand it of him. He simply wishes to feed the public Pablum. And the mainstream media is a willing participant and abettor in that strategy. We are supposed to accept on faith that Bloomberg has the Nation’s best interests at heart. I won’t buy it, and you shouldn’t either. For, the penultimate goal is gun confiscation. The criminal element will continue to buy guns on the black market, and the law-abiding American citizen will be shut out. And, the ultimate goal -- the endgame -- is de facto destruction of the Second Amendment. Actual repeal of the Second Amendment is unnecessary if the law-abiding American citizen simply can't buy guns lawfully. And, once the Second Amendment falls, the other nine Amendments will topple easily. If discussion of criminal gun violence is, then, merely a makeweight, what does Bloomberg have in store for our Second Amendment, if not its ruin? What does Bloomberg have in store for the citizenry of this Country? “Everytown’s” silence on these matters is deafening.Again, we must consider the true cause of Ridge’s sudden departure from the “Everytown” Board. But that requires a look at tactics. If Bloomberg plans to use “dirty tricks” to remove from public office or deny public office to proponents of the Second Amendment, then the public must take note. Consider. Suppose I wish to run for political office at the local, State or Federal level. I am a fervent defender of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The NRA may support my bid or not. If it does so, fine. If, not, I don’t care. Possible NRA support isn’t my motivation. My fervent promise to my constituents and to the American people at large is to preserve the integrity of the Bill of Rights – all of them. I don’t pick and choose among them. If the “Everytown” group attempts to defeat me, is it because I profess to like gun violence? That’s ridiculous. And, no reasonable group would or should support my bid for office then. But, if I am a fervent supporter of the Second Amendment does the problem rest with my political philosophy or does it rest with the philosophy of the group that would seek my ruin because I support the Second Amendment and the right of the people to keep and bear arms? If the Second Amendment is incompatible with the presence of public safety, let’s have that debate. But, the proposition isn’t axiomatic. And, given the Amendment’s importance to our heritage, culture and history, that debate is essential. But, no one call’s for that debate. Bloomberg’s position is crystal clear: the Second Amendment goes hand-in-hand with gun violence; the Second Amendment is incompatible with public safety and order. So, one must go. And, for Bloomberg and other antigun proponents, it is, then, the Second Amendment that must go. But, we have no proof of incompatibility between public safety and order on the one hand and a strong Second Amendment on the other. And, even if that were the case, do we, ipso facto, without further thought of even more serious repercussions for the American citizenry, dismember a portion of our sacred Rights? Suppose there’s a way to promote consistency – a way to resolve the dilemma if, in fact, it exists? What might that involve? Give hardened gang members and criminals who commit crimes with guns mandatory life sentences! Eliminate murderers one way or another -- draconian as that sounds! Deport non-citizen gang members to their Country of origin! And, for those gang members who are U.S. citizens, we can banish them from the United States, for life! But we don’t have that discussion. Why don’t we have that discussion? Why can’t we have that discussion? Perhaps this is due to the fact that the real concern of the puppet masters who pull the strings of the various antigun groups isn't the violence upon society caused by criminal elements and lunatics, but, rather, the mere power a law-abiding American citizenry wields through its ownership and possession of guns. Now, this isn't to suggest that any regulation of guns is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. For, a basic tenet of Constitutional law is that even a fundamental right isn’t absolute. But instituting restrictive gun laws willy-nilly, one upon another, more and more, unceasingly, unendingly, at every turn -- using as the pretext -- the action of this or that criminal psychopath or raging lunatic -- all serve a clearly, decidedly, decisively, illegitimate goal: namely, de facto dissolution of the Second Amendment -- merely to get rid of it. That cannot and should not be condoned in a free republic that claims to be one ruled by laws, and not by men -- and certainly not by secretive cabals. What do these observations boil down to? This! We have to understand that Bloomberg’s true goal is, likely, de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. Of course that won’t curb criminal use of guns and concomitant gun violence.  Criminals in fact will be emboldened, once they know the public is unarmed. That is probable -- more than probable -- certain. But, even assuming, arguendo, that gun violence did diminish if we took every gun from every law-abiding American citizen, what then? Just this: we may reasonably opine that such reduction of gun violence is, at best, only tangentially related to the real goal of the antigun groups and Bloomberg – unstated as it is: the destruction of the Second Amendment. The destruction of the Second Amendment entails the disassembling of the Bill of Rights. One must be clear about that.What can we reasonably conclude, then, is Bloomberg’s real concern? Is it truly criminal gun violence? If so, we can easily deal with that.  Suppose we could convince Bloomberg that mass confiscation of firearms wouldn't reduce gun violence in a statistically significant manner -- what then? If Bloomberg still insisted on disarming the law-abiding American public, what might that mean? Wouldn't that mean Bloomberg's concern has little if anything to do with gun violence? And, if so, wouldn't that, in turn, mean Bloomberg's real concern -- his salient concern -- is an armed citizenry whose continued existence serves to check the power of an overreaching, overarching Federal Government and its standing army? Wasn't that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment -- to check the power of an overreaching, overarching Federal Government?  Didn't the Founders intend to place the Federal Government on notice that the ultimate power rests with the People? Doesn't the Second Amendment serve as a sacred agreement between the Federal Government and the People, forbidding the Federal Government to amass all power for itself and reminding the Federal Government, as well, that the Government exists at the pleasure of the People and is subservient to the People -- that the People do not exist at the pleasure of the Government and that the People are not subservient to it? Does Bloomberg seek, through his Everytown antigun group, to modify or rescind that sacred agreement between the Federal Government and the People? And does Bloomberg's concern extend, as well, to an armed citizenry whose continued existence might serve to check the influence of the transnational and supranational business and banking interests that seek to subordinate our Constitution to the dictates of international pacts and treaties? The Founders of our Nation may not have addressed that issue directly, but certainly they did consider -- in their time -- and did discuss and did frown on any arrangement that might undercut the legal supremacy of the United States Constitution. They would just as certainly frown on such arrangement that serves to undercut the legal supremacy of the United States Constitution today. We have not, to date, had this discussion. It’s high time we did.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.