You've Got Moxi Kid

Two armed home invaders barged into a home in Canarsie, where a scuffle with a 40-year-old woman led to the (10-year-old) boy shooting at one of the robbers with the crook’s own weapon.

That's just plain ol' gumption. Move on down here to Texas and let us teach you about hitting center mass. Go read it.

So Ridiculous

So very ridiculous. Two too many. Ugh, let the stoopid begin.
Go read it.

From Inside the Limousine

In another "Let them eat cake" moment, Michael Bloomberg declares we need to change our interpretation of the Constitution.

“What we (sic) cant do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms,” he said. “You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is. And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That’s not true … That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do.”

Here's another case of someone speaking, but not listening to what they are saying. Practice your Creator-given right to your choice of religion, but don't practice your Creator-given right to keep and bear arms. Moron.

“It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks,” he said. “We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can’t do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection.”

Says something bad about you, sir, for sure. The "we" you mention, law enforcement, who are supposed to protect us have no legal responsibility to protect us as individuals, only society as a whole. I could be safe to walk down the street or go to a park if I am armed or if there is a possibility I am armed. Would not a criminal or terrorist think twice about committing a crime against another if the victim may be armed? Let the people decide on their own how they choose to defend themselves when law enforcement won't or can't protect them. How's that for an interpretation?

Go read it.

Things Are Different Now Chuck, That's How

I hope these things don't pass and we never reach an "I told you so" moment. Despite Alan Gottlieb being involved in their crafting (don't like that man like I used to), it isn't a good idea to give up something really important to get something else you never should have lost in the first place.

"How were we able to pass these bills in 1994? The broad middle rose up and said 'we want rational laws on guns.' Why? Because crime was ripping apart America," Schumer said. "Rightly or wrongly, those two bills were blamed for Democrats losing control of the House and the Senate and for 20 years, not much happened. And these mass shootings have caused the broad middle to rise up again."

Knee-jerk reactions rise again. Go read it.

I Hate Guns

and I'm a Wall Street Analyst hack who needs to make nice with my employer, Michael Bloomberg. So, I tried to tie two semi-relatable things together, but couldn't really get it done in the end.

What with the terrorist attack in Boston, the deadly explosion at a fertilizer plant in Texas and the inane vote against gun control in the U.S. Senate, you may have missed the news late last week about Stephen Feinberg. The reclusive co-founder of the buyout firm Cerberus Capital Management LP is attempting one of his most daring and ill- conceived deals of all time: trying to buy Freedom Group Inc., one of the world’s largest gun manufacturers, from his own company.

Go read it.

Let's Be Sensible

And all you law-abiding, non-criminal gun owners just give it up. Whatever Melady. Your touchy-feely load of hogwash fails to recognize that there are already laws on the books which cover criminal acts. Please also notice that your holier-than-thou diatribe demonizes inanimate objects rather than the cowards who would turn a gun on a child. 

"Let's drop the false choices. We can honor the Second Amendment and also take reasonable steps to make our communities safer. No hunter or responsible gun owner needs an assault weapon designed to inflict maximum carnage on the battlefield."

What, exactly, is a weapon supposed to do in your estimation? Deploy a feather to tickle a perpetrator until he wets himself and stops his attack out of embarrassment? Sheesh. Go read it.

And, by the way, the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is some part of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.