Bloomberg TERRIFIED Of Pro-2A Researcher

I’m a pro-2A advocate. That’s obvious, isn’t it? You likely are, too, since you’re reading this site. And Michael Bloomberg isn’t.

But you already knew that, didn’t you? Michael Bloomberg hasn’t seen a gun control scheme that he doesn’t want to implement.

And Bloomberg is pretty aggressive, even blunt and rude, in his pushing of gun control. But it seems that he’s afraid of (terrified of?) a pro-2A researcher who systematically and regularly takes apart anti-2A arguments like the nonsense that Bloomberg regularly pushes (hat tip to here for the lead). Chip Brownlee and Jennifer Mascia, for the Bloomberg site The Trace, write,

“If Trump is reelected, there’s no more White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention,” said Adzi Vokhiwa, vice president of policy at the Community Justice Action Fund, a gun violence prevention group. “I think all of that goes away.”

Democrats on Capitol Hill, including Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Representative Maxwell Frost of Florida, introduced bills to make the office permanent, but the legislation stalled in a narrowly divided Senate and Republican-controlled House. 

That likely means the office will be gone “on Day One” of a second Trump presidency, Murphy told The Trace. 

Brownlee and Mascia continue:

Should Trump decide to keep the office, it would be at his whim — possibly refashioned as a repository for pro-gun policies or, as some gun rights advocates have suggested, an outfit to push Second Amendment expansion.

“The obvious choice is for the Trump administration to completely dismantle it,” said Devin Hughes, founder of the gun violence research outfit GVPedia.

“More likely, however, they will use the office as a platform to spread disinformation on gun violence that is favorable to the gun lobby, with someone like John Lott at its head,” Hughes said […].

The hit piece then goes on to try to make Lott look less than credible.

Of course, the reason why they try to smear Lott is because Lott’s use of statistics in context (instead of using knee-jerk emotionally-driven anti-2A rhetoric without any rationality) regular crushes anti-2A attempts at arguments.

It’s because Lott looks for the truth instead of looking to push an agenda without merit.

And the fact that a Bloomberg publication tried to smear Lott is evidence of how effective that he has been in those efforts.

If Bloomberg and company cared about the truth and saving lives, though, they’d reverse their opposition to private gun ownership, and they’d go out, buy their own firearms, and train with them.

I’m not holding my breath for that, though.