Gun Control is for “Wealthy, White Individuals”

Clutching Pearls

Wow. Just wow. One of the former city officials who backed the Bloomberg/CeasefirePA effort to enact local gun control laws said that his city needs to fight on behalf of gun control because he wants to keep the city safe for “white, wealthy individuals.”

Michael Donovan, a former member of city council who supported the lost and stolen gun law, said Allentown should be joining other prominent Pennsylvania cities in their fight against the state law.

“Allentown is the third largest city in the state,” he said. “It is claiming a renaissance for wealthy, white individuals who wish to be safe. I believe the mayor has a responsibility to join the fight against this law.”

No, I’m not kidding. The gun control ally really did say that out loud to a reporter. But, it got buried at the bottom of the story. Do you think if he was a Republican that this would be at the very bottom of the story?

7 thoughts on “Gun Control is for “Wealthy, White Individuals””

  1. That’s just wow.

    I’m a liberal (but not a Democrat) and I find that completely offensive, from every angle. Sure, he’s not currently in office, and is probably trying to say anything to get some relevance, but it’s still awful.

    (My guess is that if a non-office holding Republican had said that, it wouldn’t even have made it to print.)

    1. It would depend on who the non-office holding Republican was. I’m pretty sure if it was Sarah Palin or Ted Nugent, your guess would be wrong. If it was a Republican former city councilman from a city that most people only know exists because of a Billy Joel song, maybe not.

  2. I often view this type of thing as money and guns both represent political power. Those with money, the very wealthy (Bloomberg, Soros etc.) try to extinguish our influence with their money and we try to neutralize theirs with our God given right to own and use our guns for lawful purposes. I mean wouldn’t it be easier for the very rich and connected to rule in safety if the commoners were disarmed? Control under the disguise of safety?

  3. “… wealthy, white individuals who wish to be safe.”

    It is not about guns, it is all about CONTROL.

    This guy doesn’t want to cede any power or control to those “other” people. He wants it all for him and “his” people. In the 1870’s he would have been supporting the local KKK which was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party, and the Black Codes that disarmed the freedmen.

    1. Just look at New York’s Sullivan Law.

      And note that Bloomberg was perfectly fine with CCW in NYC (someone who is not shy about lobbying to change gun laws), provided the NYPD could keep “those” people from legally carrying guns.

  4. At the meeting, Donovan said that he was offended that the Tea Party, a bunch of outsiders, would come in here and force us to do this. Ha, ha…. First off, we’re not outsiders. We have hundreds of members in Allentown. Second, did he mention CeaseFirePA who also spoke? They are backed by a true outsider, Bloomberg.

    Oh, he’s offended by the Tea Party. I’m offended that Allentown has been breaking state law for many years, and doing so willfully. Eichenwald said they knew the lost & stolen ordinance was unlawful but passed it to send a message to the state. Are you kidding? You break the law to send a message? Don’t they know how bills are passed, and that we have legal means for getting state law enacted?

Comments are closed.