You Can’t Fix Gun Control Stupid — Not Even With $50 Million!

Smith and Wesson .357 Magnum and roll of money

Surely you have all heard that after Bloomberg’s failure to affect policy with his formation of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), Bloomberg abandoned the project and took his anti-gun agenda to the masses when he formed Everytown. MAIG had two main problems. First, too many mayors finally woke up and realized the group had nothing to do with illegal guns. Instead, it was all about restricting legal guns.

Smith and Wesson .357 Magnum and roll of money
Its Bloomberg’s billions versus the freedoms of millions of Americans.

As a result, the group collapsed when members started denouncing it as a front for gun control. Second, multiple high-profile members were arrested for drug and alcohol crimes, theft, domestic abuse, resisting arrest, assault on a police officer, sexual assault upon children, child porn, accepting bribes, extortion, interfering with a murder investigation, corruption tax evasion—and let’s not forget gun crimes of course. As it turns out, if you want a group of spokespeople, starting your pool with politicians may not be your wisest choice. After his years in office, you would think Bloomberg would have realized that.

On a cautionary note: videos on YouTube can yield significant monetary returns through ads. I would caution Cheaper Than Dirt!’s readers about clicking on ads and unintentionally funding Bloomberg’s anti-gun agenda.

Sale ends July 21, 2019

Sale ends July 21, 2019

Well, $50 million and a new group of activists hasn’t fared much better. Although Bloomberg funded Everytown with an initial pledge of $50 million; its latest campaign has done more to show why women should own and know how to use a gun to prevent being a victim and becoming injured or killed. The fear-mongering ad begins with a mother and child home alone. The ex-husband is heard beating on the door and the defenseless woman dutifully dials 9-1-1… and waits. The woman pleads with the operator while explaining she has a restraining order against her ex.

Sadly, and suddenly, she comes to the realization that a “piece of paper” was insufficient to prevent the man from busting through the door and grabbing the child. The mother engages in a futile struggle with the man who produces a handgun. As the screen fades to black, a single gunshot can be heard.

Inside the Message

Everytown’s agenda is a bit hard to decipher. Should women allow their children to be abducted by deranged lunatics? Perhaps women should understand their feebleness and dutifully await a response from 911 like a good victim. After all, she could always call back and perhaps she would at least be safe—or not. Even if the gun were eliminated from the scenario, someone breaking through a locked door, thus proving an unwillingness to comply with a lawful restraining order is more than enough to suggest a clear and present danger to the mother and child. How could any parent standby and not become involved in such a situation?

Mottos such “protect and serve” are slogans, not legal mandates.

In actuality, the ad had a dual purpose. Its release was designed to coincide with a congressional hearing aimed at expanding federal firearm prohibitions pertaining to misdemeanor convictions and restraining orders. While Everytown hoped to spotlight the issue and incite public outrage to influence policy, de facto the ad demonstrated the need for women to know how to defend herself and her family. It also begs the question, what if the wolf at the door had not been an ex-husband, but instead a drug-fueled child molester? Legally, the ad fails as well. If the man was in fact the ex-husband (he does yell while pounding on the door, “This is my house!”) and already has a restraining order against him as she indicates to the 911 operator, the protection order would likely prohibit him from possessing a firearm in the first place. Once he made the effort to abandon the law, break the order and illegally enter the home to kidnap a child (even a parental abduction), he has proven that no law would have deterred him. The bang! at the end alludes to the fact that the man is willing to commit the highest crimes in our nation—murder and kidnapping—and a 911 response will likely not come fast enough to prevent a crime.

A Duty to Protect?

It is hard to imagine any of the viewers (thinking viewers) could come away with any message beyond an understanding that the vast majority of police are well intended and willing to put their personal safety at risk. However, sadly they cannot respond in time to prevent all such events, perhaps not even a majority. Regardless of response time, it is important to understand the courts have ruled the police do not have a duty to protect you (mottos such “protect and serve” are slogans, not legal mandates). There are several lower court cases with minor conflicts within the decisions, but the Supreme Court has not minced words while definitively deciding the matter. In 1989, the high court ruled that law enforcement has no duty to act or protect against third-party violence, (violence not perpetrated by officials themselves which is a whole other discussion) in DeShaney v. Winnebago County. In the 2005 case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court ruled law enforcement has no duty to act or protect, even if the victim has a restraining order, and even if state law mandates police make an arrest for restraining order violations.

What is the take away from the high court’s message? Personal safety is the responsibility of the individual, not the police.

Should you ever find yourself or loved one in such an unprepared predicament, first, shame on you. Second, unexpected events occur to otherwise prepared people, and there are legal remedies which can be exercised before a tragedy. For instance, Ohio allows (after a showing of imminent danger) a person to apply for a 90-day emergency Right-to-Carry permit. The law was designed to bypass the lengthier issuance process. Wisconsin and other states have similar laws. Even ungunfriendly states such as California have laws on the books. California had (and probably still does but I am not a lawyer or legal expert. I leave that to the folks at Texas Law Shield.) an exception for carrying concealed without a license if you have a restraining order against someone. The law is a wobbler and highly subject to interpretation, so do not think it is a get out of jail free card. However, in an emergency I’d rather take my chances being placed before a judge over a mortician.

Know a recent win for gun rights? Perhaps one that you were involved in or a pending piece of legislation that needs attention? Share it with us in the comment section?

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog. "The Shooter's Log", is to provide information - not opinions - to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decicions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (30)

  1. The only thing this stupid (original) ad did was to motivate more women to arm themselves! As this insipid little plot goes along, the ad clearly demonstrates how utterly useless ‘restraining orders’ are, even if they’re supposed to mandate disarming the individual. Also demonstrates the reality of calling 911…..they ‘may’ try to get there as soon as possible, but even the fastest response, short of having a cop rent a bedroom upstairs, will NOT get there in time to do a thing about the situation.

  2. I found it very sad the very day this ad was run on TV in Arizona, a news release that a woman was beaten to death by her ex who had a restraining order.

  3. Bloomberg is a Socialist Idiot, some one should remove his worthless money and armed bodyguards and make him live like the rest of. This person has more money than commonsense.

    In fact I have much more commonsense in my little finger that he has in his fat head.

  4. I am against gun control of any kind, I know things have changed since our founding fathers gave protection from big brother taking our weapons, it seems the politicians want to make all of us unarmed targets for the bad guys, they think that we are easy prey, as a senior I have applied for a conceal and carry permit , I find that more and more of us are becoming targets for the dope fiends, gang bangers, car jackers, robbers of all kinds, seniors have little chance in hand to hand combat, lets get the message out, we are not going to take it anymore, the old guys and gals are locked and loaded, and carrying, we are now armed and dangerous,

  5. Bloomberg is a sick and twisted little man. I for one enjoy when his name is associated with a cause, because its like a red flag telling me he is again at work trying to infringe on my rights and quality of life. I then will of course do what I can to denounce his efforts…and the fools that take his money and support his irrational cause.

  6. If only the woman had a gun to defend herself against her armed assailant. Bloomberg needs to understand that guns aren’t going anywhere. With hundreds of millions of firearms in the USA as well as untold millions more in our neighbors to the north and south it truly would be impossible to create a gun free nation. What he should focus his power and $$ on are education, drug rehabilitation and anger management treatments….then maybe we wouldn’t need to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights in the fashion we do now. Bad guys don’t follow gun laws, only good guys do. If the bad guys are the only ones with guns, we all have the possibility of suffering the same fate as the mother in the video…

    1. what always goes unnoticed (here and everyother opinion outlet) is that the grabbers/lefties have written-off the law-abiding citizen. they know there is no way to really lower crimminal use of firearms. being essentially lazy bullies, the left is forcefully saying, “your death at the hands of a crimminal is just part of living in a democracy, a risk you just have to accept.” yes, the collectivists are not concerned about individual lives, only being able to say, “you better mind me, or else”.

    2. I agree with you…. Bloomberg would rather waist his $$$$$’s on disarming the country. He needs to focus his $$$$’s on education and drug abuse and so forth….. Only problem is, Bloomberg has his head so far up his rectum he can’t see the truth behind the 2nd amendment…. We as a citizen of the USA have the rights to defend ourselves against any form of attack from those who wants to do bodily harm or death…. The gun does not have a brain, it is the thug or criminal behind the gun who pulls the trigger….. The gun does not have a brain nor it can not walk either to commit the crime….. We also have the rights to protect ourselves from any form of tyranny from the government…. Guarantee Bloomberg has armed body guards as well protecting him….

    3. Yes he does have armed guards, heavily armed. I can almost guarantee the weapons they carry have high capacity magazines as well. So, what he is essentially saying is “I can have hundreds of rounds available to protect me but you ‘normal citizens’ don’t need high capacity magazines”. The double standards of gun grabbing politicians/former politicians are infuriating. My son/wife have the right to be just as safe as Bloomberg and he doesn’t have the right to tell me I can’t defend them by all means necessary.

    4. Bloomberg has around 14 bodyguards all fully armed with automatic for him and his family just like Obama and the rest of the sociopaths of the New World Order of the Socialist Democratic party.

    5. No, Bloomberg should continue to waste his money on this nonsense. I know it’s too much to ask, but maybe he will waste enough money to impact his kid’s inheritance. Then they will, free of charge shut him up with lawsuits.

    6. Bloomy is a police-state collectivist ‘aristocrat’ with his own private armed guards. He doesn’t give a crap about your safety – he wants you disarmed so he and his cronies can jam the ‘new order’ down your throats after we are all powerless to resist.

      Because of that kind of thinking, I don’t even bother to get into the discussion any more. I’ll just keep my guns, improve the mix and the sights, stock up on ammo, and get more training and practice. The day will come when there will be fighting about gun control – and I’m going to be ready.

    7. Bloomberg knows perfectly well that “gun control” doesn’t stop crime; that’s not what he is after. No, he believes that he is “special”; that he is a part of a “chosen” group that has the right to defend itself, while the rest of us do not have that right. He shares this belief with President MomJeans, who like Bloomberg is surrounded by armed security guards 24/7 and lives in a house with a very big fence around it.. Moreover, Obama’s children attend a school protected by armed security, while OUR children have to make do with scraps of paper that say “no guns”… as if that makes a damned bit of difference.

      Are we not men? Do we not have the right to protect our homes, our lives and our loved ones? Every bee will defend its hive, and every ant its mound: are we not worth at least as much as bugs?

      Ideals Mastering Power Creating All Life GOD IS

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.