Bloomberg v. Obama, Romney
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
The support for the Second Amendment by both Governor Romney and President Obama at the debate this week has ignited a new round of bluster from Mayor Bloomberg in respect of guns. According to the report in the New York Post the mayor went so far as to question the integrity of both candidates, describing their remarks as “gibberish” and saying: “I think what we did get was a perfect example of obfuscation and very little honesty.”
His honor has long since concluded he couldn’t win a presidential election. We say that as a newspaper that would have liked to see the mayor throw his hat into the ring (we were attracted to, among other features of a Bloomberg campaign, at least the possibility that the candidates of each party would be from New York). We have no doubt that one of the reasons he couldn’t win an election is his view that the blame for gun violence attaches to the weapon.
The question about guns was asked at the debate by a member of the audience, Nina Gonzalez, who directed her query to President Obama and asked what he’s done to limit the availability of assault weapons. Mr. Obama started out by saying that he believes in the Second Amendment, which gives individuals in America the right to keep arms. “We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves,” Mr. Obama said.
It was an immediate, fundamental, constitutional distinction between the most liberal person ever to hold the presidency and Mr. Bloomberg. Our mayor is against the Second Amendment. He doesn’t believe in it, he doesn’t support it, and he refuses to enforce it in New York City. It has nothing to do with whether the weapon is an automatic weapon, an assault weapon, or an ordinary six shooter. The city will not permit its residents to keep even non-automatic weapons in their cars or concealed on their persons. It won’t even let them keep a firearm them in their homes.
The ban isn’t absolute. A few individuals are permitted to keep a pistol at home and bear it as they go about town. The last acquaintance we had who managed to wangle a pistol permit in the city was the late owner of the New York Times, Arthur “Punch” Sulzberger He got his permit before Mayor Bloomberg acceded; whether he could have gained a permit in Mr. Bloomberg’s New York, one can but guess. We’ve no desire to carry a weapon ourselves, but the ordinary New Yorker who feels threatened on the street, or simply likes guns — in other words, people like Mr. Obama referenced in the debate — doesn’t stand a chance.
The mayor, in the comments quoted in the New York Post, mocked Mr. Obama for talking about the importance of education in reducing gun violence. He noted that the killer who struck at Aurora, Colorado, was a graduate student. But whose point does that make? By the mayor’s logic the fact that one mentally ill individual got ahold of a weapon means that sane persons shouldn’t be permitted to carry weapons. Mr. Bloomberg is preparing to spend millions of dollars supporting candidates who oppose the right to keep and bear arms. In other words, he’s getting set to exercise the First Amendment to defeat the Second Amendment.