Mike Bloomberg Calls For Ban On Assault Weapons

Tyler Durden's picture

In the least unexpected news of the week, Mayor Mike, whose forays into central planning started with banning sugary sodas, and then proceeded to gas rationing, has just done what everyone expected him to do, and demand a ban on all assault weapons:


We eagerly await the imminent escalation: the "taxable inhalable oxygen for those making over $250,000 - it's only fair act" to be proposed by Mayor Mike and his central-planning enamored brethren in D.C. next.

From AP:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and dozens of shooting survivors and victims' relatives are calling on Congress and President Barack Obama to tighten gun laws and enforcement.


The mayor was appearing at City Hall Monday with 34 people whose own lives or the lives of their relatives have been affected by gun violence around the country. They're sending videos to lawmakers telling their stories.


Bloomberg has long been an advocate for tougher national gun regulations. He has found himself at the forefront of a re-energized push for gun control since Friday's massacre at a Connecticut elementary school.


He says the carnage "demands immediate national action."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fix It Again Timmy's picture

I'm totally with Azzhatter's comment...

SilverMoneyBags's picture

I guess making people autistic from bad vaccines has blowback too.

Eastwood's picture

I'm sure the readers of ZH would rather read, "A Majority of the U.S. Populace Calls for a Ban on the Bernanke Printing Press"

Eastwood's picture

I'm sure the readers of ZH would rather read, "A Majority of the U.S. Populace Calls for a Ban on the Bernanke Printing Press"

Eastwood's picture

I'm sure ZH Nation would rather read "The U.S. populace calls for an all-out ban on the Bernanke Printing Press"

DavosSherman's picture

Douchebag Moron Elitist Bloomberg: There is a ban on landing helicopters on Saturday on the E 34th St. Heliport and you land there all the fucking time on the weekend.

Bans don't work.

Fuck you!


darteaus's picture

I call for an immediate gun ban for the mayor's security personnel.

I call for a liquor ban for all mayorial events.

I demand that the mayor only ride in zero emissions vehicles.

I demand that all electrical appliances and lighting in the mayorial residence be high efficiency.

I demand that all mayorial event use only fair trade products.

I call for an immediate suspension of all mayorial activities until the appropriate processes, oversight committiees and audit boards are in place to enforce all of the above.

The mayor needs to set an example of leadership in these troubled times.

GoldenDragon's picture

When Bloomberg and these other anti-gun politico's give up their weapons and their armed security details, I will consider doing them same.  Until then I'm keeping my guns.

Oh yeah, I also promise to keep my carbon footprint smaller than Al Gore's

John Law Lives's picture

Michael Bloomberg should stick to serving those who elected him and forget about trying to influence national policy.  He was not elected to serve those outside NYC, and his opinions re. national policy belong on the pay-no-mind list.

J.L.L. = Life Member of the NRA and no fan of this gun grabber.

marcusfenix's picture

an armed public is the only thing that keeps those with tyrannical, autocratic ambitions in check. the right to keep and bare arms is the ordinary citizens first, last and only line of defense against anybody who would aspire to take away their life, liberty or property. the chaos of a civil war against large numbers of armed citizens is maybe the only thing left for the PTB's to fear.

give that up or allow it to be taken away and you might as well forge your own chains or sow your own yellow star on your clothing. without that right, that ability we are all at the mercy of those who do have the guns, those who can threaten violence and death against us or our loved ones without fear of retaliation.

without the ability to balance the terms of the engagement, we will only have what freedoms and rights they allow us to have. even now there are precious few of those left, but without the ability to defend ourselves in a meaningful way we will have nothing.

this is the paramount issue in the survival of America, this is what will decide whether or not government of the people, by the people and for the people vanishes from the face of the earth, as it is already slipping away.

my thoughts and prayers are sincerely with those who lost loved ones in Newtown and I can't even begin to comprehend what it is like to loose a child in that way but it does beg the question.

what if one or two adults had been armed in that school, how many lives could an armed citizen have saved that day? the police were never going to be able to get there fast enough to do anything except deal with the aftermath, but a firearm on site in the hands of a person who cared, who could have made a difference... if that were the case this story could have turned differently, and isn't even the chance that lives could have been saved worth the minimal risks involved with having a weapon on the premises?

the fools who call for and support banning guns don't realize they are strining there own noose and abdicating their responsibility for the safety of themselves and their loved ones as the police will never get there on time. not to mention would you trust those who demand you give up your guns while they refuse to give up theirs?  


Widowmaker's picture

Widowmaker calls on Bullshitberg to ban assault laws.

Burticus's picture

The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms".  When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows and spears.  However, a common-law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare."  That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.  Somewhere in between we need to draw the line.  The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally.  The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction.  If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

Copyright © 1994 Constitution Society


matsoR's picture

Americans need guns so they can compensate for their small penises.

DosZap's picture

Who,gives a flying rats ass what this petty little rich bitch for THE  CESSPOOL of NYC has to say...................best start shutting the piehole, and clean up your(killing fields) before trying to RUN the country.The rest of America,esp the red states could give a shit less, WHAT you want or your opinions are.

You are a useless Yankee cokskr.

Pumpkin's picture

EVERYONE READ THIS PLEASE.  Title 18 section 7 defines the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. It says 3 TIMES that it DOES NOT EXTEND INTO THE STATES.  Read it, it is only 1 1/2 pages.  The feds CANNOT make gun laws in the states.

MeelionDollerBogus's picture

so that means Eric Holder will be charged with gun traficking? no?

conspicio's picture

Gawd this is an entertaining forum topic today. SO here are some choice Bloomie quotes from the vault:

A) circa 2008 "You have a right under the Second Amendment, we’ve always believed, to hold a pistol or a rifle. What you don’t have a right to do is to hold one if you are a criminal, and the courts clearly ruled that reasonable regulation — which we believe would include all of the laws on the books in New York State and New York City, and sufficient to keep guns out of the hands of criminals — reasonable regulations are permitted under that decision"

B) circa 2010 "we believe it is an opportunity for our president to make a strong pledge to fix our gun laws and shore up our background check system because the state of our union includes the tragic reality that 34 Americans are murdered with guns every single day, and most of them are purchased or possessed illegally"

C) circa 2003 ""Had everyone gone through the magnetometers, we probably would have stopped that," Bloomberg told reporters. "Everybody, from now on, is going through the magnetometers."(re City Hall shooting where "certain" people were waived thru security)

D) circa 2005 "In New York City, which already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation, the gun liability bill is part of a broader package of proposals intended to reduce illegal gun trafficking. The proposals also include ratcheting up penalties for people who violate the city's assault weapons ban and increasing the minimum age for permits for rifles or shotguns to 21 from 18.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who appeared yesterday at a news conference at Middle School 88 in Park Slope, Brooklyn, said his administration had been working closely with the Council on the gun control bills and pledged to sign them into law. ''They make a lot of sense,'' he said."


Slightly Insane's picture

When Bloomburg gives up his staff of "body guards".  I think anyone with an IQ less than 99 should have their taxes raised proportional to the percentage less than 99.  Politicians should have their taxes automatically doubled, and all fed health care suspended, they get Obamacare.

zippy_uk's picture

"Its a government conspiracy, its an attack on democracy, we need to crack down on scum bags, defend the consitution"

Lets apply Occams Razon to this one shall we ?

The FEWER people who have access to guns, the FEWER people get shot by them.

As simple as I can make it.

Signed (from the nation that brought you red coats on the Platomac) Brit person, second biggest arms manufactoring nation on the planet (US is 1st), big hunting culture and winner of Olympics gold medal for shooting. Our regular police are NOT armed with guns.

If you really need to defend your nation from red coats on the Platomac in the nuclear age, give everyone the same kit as Washington - a musket rife - you could even add a bayonet if you want. Nobody gets to own anything else. Then all this shit stops because the take 2 minutes to reload. Not the 6 rounds a second that a bushmaster rifle takes.

And if you want to defend yourself from your Government, get off you backsides and vote (against the corporate guy).

The citizens of the US have more guns by a massive factor compared to everyone else, but no other country has the problem with gun shootings, or school shootings like America does. NO OTHER COUNTRY. FACT.

The choice is - do you value your children more than you value your guns.

BidnessMan's picture

Yeah - remind me about your recent riots where rampaging gangs looted and ransacked big sections of your cities. Where the gangs knew the police had no ability to stop them, citizens and property owners were defenseless, and your "police" stood by, watched it happen, and did nothing. The same unarmed police who shot and killed the innocent man from Brazil? Lecturing from a two-bit formerly significant country about why their way is better - sheesh. The kid was insane, and his mother did not lock up her weapons. A tragedy for sure. The Mom paid the ultimate price, and should have known better. But like it or not, there are 300M weapons in the US. Despite a rash of boating accidents, they are not going away. Let's all just sing Kumbaya, do a group hug, and have your Queen mandate World Peace by next Tuesday. Problem solved - right?

Rearranging Deckchairs's picture

Ofcourse under his "ban" that not racist benevolent organization called the NYPD get to keep their assault rifles. Oh so I guess its not really a "ban" after all.


NaN's picture

Can we vote to actively label posting and comments to save everyone time?  

For example, this story can be labeled DIVISIVE BAIT and the comments are mostly POLITICAL VENTING.

That way I can easily find the INSIGHTFUL and INFORMATIVE content.