Newest Fox News piece on Bloomberg's false statements on concealed handgun laws

My newest piece at Fox News starts this way:
Michael Bloomberg is spending tens of millions of dollars trying to convince state legislatures to support restrictive gun control laws.  From television and newspaper ads, to blanketing communities with flyers, to bringing in people from out of state to testify, no effort seems too great.  Then again, he is worth of over $36 billion.
But Bloombeg’s newest campaign has become so extreme that even gun control advocates may wonder that he is becoming a liability to their cause.  And he has already earned a reputation for fabricating numbers, with even liberal-leaning PolitiFact slamming Bloomberg for exaggerating the number of school shootings by a factor of five.  Other inaccuracies include that deaths from school shootings are increasing, that attacks with “assault weapons” are the most deadly, that firearms research fell dramatically after the restrictions on federal funding, and absurdly that “84% of female firearm homicides in 25 countries are in US.”
Bloomberg is now running advertisements attacking state legislators who are sponsoring legislation to eliminate gun-free zones.   Thus in Nevada, his campaign is targeting state Assemblywoman Michele Fiore who is sponsoring a bill to eliminate gun-free zones in schools and government buildings.  The 30-second ad announces that Fiore wants legislation "allowing criminals to carry hidden, loaded guns in our schools and college campuses. Anywhere we go, criminals and the dangerously mentally ill could be carrying loaded handguns, putting us at risk.”
But this is an outrageous falsehood.  Eliminating gun-free zones doesn’t mean that just anyone can pack heat. You still need to have a concealed handgun permit, which requires a criminal background check.
Besides, permit holders are incredibly law-abiding.  In 2014, there were over 90,000 permit holders in Nevada.  But only 128 people had their permits revoked for any reason. . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

The liberal argument that someone is not law abiding because they have committed a crime in the past is bogus and plays on their need to control society. If someone had a driving while intoxicated 20 years ago when they were 20 years old the liberals want to say for the maybe 8 hours this person broke the law, that the ofenders 350,000 hours of good life don't count towards being a good productive member of society. Liberals determine who is good and who is bad and they base this off of superficial prejudice not based on morality or freedom. Control, control, control...the second amendment, which abrogates federal and state laws, does notbsay only people who do not have an OUI in their pas can protect themselves. The second amendment recognizes the immorality of government control and was created to stop the governments control of individuals. If someone is dangerous, please put them in jail, if they have done there time, recognize the citizens rights to defend themselves.

3/15/2015 8:31 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home