The buzz this morning is that NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg introduced Barack Obama before a speech on the economy. Is Bloomberg perhaps going to endorse? Or even… is it possible that there’s a joint-ticket possibility? Marc Ambinder writes:
The First Read gang is all a-buzz at the Obama-Needs-A-Jew-On-The-Ticket Angle, but I think the best way to look at an Obama-Bloomberg ticket is by noticing their complimentary traits.
Personally, I’m not familiar enough with the mayor to know whether a joint ticket would be a good thing or bad, generally. I do know, though, that putting Bloomberg into the VP slot will cause massive problems here in my home — because Dear Husband tells me he’ll not only stop supporting Obama, he’ll work actively against him if Bloomberg’s in the mix.
Here’s why:
SMYRNA, Ga., Dec. 5 — In Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s campaign to remove illegal guns from New York City’s streets, he sued 27 out-of-state gun dealerships last year over what he said were illegal sales. Most agreed to settle, while others chose to take their chances in court. […]
The dispute has its roots in what has become a prominent theme in Mr. Bloomberg’s second term: stemming the flow of illegal firearms into New York, mostly from other states.
In a sting operation, the city sent teams of private investigators, usually a man and a woman, to five states. Posing as gun buyers, they went to stores whose guns had been linked to more than 500 crimes in New York City from 1994 to 2001.
I agree with DH that a city has no business crossing lines into another jurisdiction like this. There are other entities set up specifically to handle the problem Bloomberg was working on. (ATF, anyone?)
On the other hand, it’s not at all clear to me that Michael Bloomberg’s battling against the Second Amendment. My impression is that he’s targeting the method by which guns are illegally hitting our streets in such astounding numbers.
Thus, I don’t know that Bloomberg’s goals are the problem so much as the rather appalling tactic he evidently used…. and the difference matters.
Law-abiding gun owners are not a threat to our society, nor are the guns themselves. Rather, the problem is that criminals seem to have no trouble getting their hands on them… and no, I don’t believe for a minute that the briskly lucrative street-trade can be accounted for by home robberies. One would have to assume all homes to be veritable arsenals for that argument to fly.
Sigh….
Meanwhile, DH has voiced his extreme displeasure at the possibility of Bloomberg teaming up with Obama. Here’s hoping it’s all just buzz… cuz I really don’t want a repeat of 2004 at my house.
Added: A recent Gallup poll about the Second Amendment here. The upshot? Lots of folks seem to agree with me.