Now that new media has freed MAIG’s Blueprint for Screwing Gun Owners, his eminence the Mayor has decided to grace the public with the document, according to the Brooklyn Eagle:
The report, entitled Blueprint for Federal Action on Illegal Guns, was sent to President Obama and key members of his administration last August and is being publicly released in the New Year.
How nice of him. I guess since we already made it public, he can pretend like transparency was his plan all along. It’s amazing how much these worms argue for things like openness and transparency out of one side of their mouths, then conspire in secret when it suits them. At least until someone flips on the light switch and the cockroaches scatter.
7 thoughts on “By Bloomberg’s Grace”
Transparency for Thee, but not for Moi!
It’s all about expediency and how much they can grab before the lights come on. It’s the same tactic as anti-gunners saying they’re looking for a “compromise” — which is really for gun-owners to capitulate to their “compromise solution” while they give up nothing.
This is the really disturbing part:
“…enacting these 40 recommendations will save lives â€” and each can be done administratively, without action by the Congress…”
I don’t think the president can actually do this, but if he does my guess is the Democrats won’t control either chamber of Congress again come 2011.
What’s your calculation for additional seats turned over due to this? I mean we’d have to gain at least 5 seats in the Senate and at least a handful (not sure on an exact number since it’s harder to predict) in the House that aren’t already in danger. So which additional seats – on top of those already pegged as politically unstable for incumbents – do you see becoming competitive because of Bloomberg’s suggestions?
And yes, the president – regardless of party – can make some decisions outside the scope of Congress. Otherwise how do you explain the regulatory system, agency rules, and the always entertaining read known as the Federal Register where new rules are published for comment?
Bitter is of course correct, but I don’t think it’s clear what the extent of presidential proclamations actually are to decree “policies” that are actually laws–no doubt the practical limit is an unfortunately elastic one partially influenced to the political winds of the moment.
I don’t think any seats are in play due to MAIG’s manifesto, which is predictable, but seats may come into play if independents see actions by the president or Congress that infringe on gun rights as a result of listening to MAIG. I know several liberal Democrats who voted for W. against Gore over gun issues in 2000, btw; it’s not an us vs. them or right vs. left thing in my experience as much as a matter of freedom & Constitutional rights. After all, Bloomberg used to be a Republican, too.
But I’m still wondering how that will change things to Democrats losing control. Think about the numbers they have right now. To assert that this could make a difference in cutting them to a minority party is a very optimistic charge. Look at the seats that are actually up. I’m wary of anyone who says that one issue will suddenly turn Congress.
Also, these suggestions aren’t proclamations, they are regulations and agency practices.
Comments are closed.