Bloomberg Dismisses Texas Hero, Insists It Wasn’t His “Job” to Have a Gun or Decide to Shoot

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

There’s more! Democratic contender Bloomberg again denies the importance of the 2nd amendment. READ MORE

bloomberg

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Jack Wilson — a 71-year-old congregant of the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Tex. — is a hero to most Americans. When a deranged man savagely murdered two of Mr. Wilson’s fellow worshippers during a service at the church on Dec. 29, Wilson took swift action. He exposed himself to danger to deliver a single shot from his lawfully carried handgun that instantly ended what undoubtedly would have been even more terrible carnage among the hundreds present.

texas church

Other congregants were also seen producing lawfully carried handguns in response to the threat. Several closed in on the fallen assailant to ensure he was neutralized. None of them panicked or acted rashly and no errant shots were fired.

The entire episode was over in six seconds and was captured on the church’s livestream.

The evidence is inescapable and available to anyone who cares to view it. Anybody who has ever tried to justify a public policy proposal on the grounds that it could save “just one life” is now on notice that lawful concealed carry saved many lives in just that one episode.

Yet one person who did not bother to watch the video or acquaint himself with the facts is Democrat presidential contender Michael Bloomberg. Commenting on the incident at a campaign stop in Montgomery Ala., Bloomberg did not mention Jack Wilson’s name. Bloomberg did not even acknowledge that the events depicted in video and widely reported in the media – including on Bloomberg’s self-named news site – were authentic.

But if they were, he huffed, it didn’t change his mind that only the police (which apparently include the current and former officers on his own armed protection detail) should be able to carry firearms in public.

“It may true, I wasn’t there, I don’t know the facts, that somebody in the congregation had their own gun and killed the person who murdered two other people,” he said. “But it’s the job of law enforcement to, uh, have guns and to decide when to shoot.” He continued, “You just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place.”

In the best-case scenario, responding police would still have been minutes away from the violence breaking out in the West Freeway Church of Christ. The shotgun-wielding assailant could have killed many more people in that time had he not faced armed resistance of his own.

But Bloomberg’s own words indicate he would consider that an acceptable price to pay to vindicate his arch-statist and anti-constitutional view that the government should have a complete monopoly on the lawful use of lethal force.

What, in Bloomberg’s mind, make police the only people who can be trusted with firearms?

Does he feel that only law enforcement can effectively and safely use firearms?

Jack Wilson answered that question on Dec. 29, 2019, by delivering a single, precise shot at 15 yards that felled its target and only its target, saving innocent lives.

But somehow that’s still not good enough for Michael Bloomberg because Wilson is not an active-duty police officer.

What lesson are we supposed to learn from Bloomberg’s response to the White Settlement events, other than who shoots whom isn’t as important to him as who gets to decide who lawfully wields lethal force?

Are you willing to helplessly take one for Team Bloomberg’s scheme of law and order if you end up in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Note that Michael Bloomberg isn’t taking that risk himself; his payroll includes plenty of armed men to keep him safe.

The Second Amendment is your guarantee that you need not take the risk either, which is why Michael Bloomberg’s worldview cannot be reconciled with that fundamental liberty.

This stands in stark contrast to President Trump, who understands exactly what the right to keep and bear arms is all about and unabashedly respects that right.

“It was over in 6 seconds thanks to the brave parishioners who acted to protect 242 fellow worshippers,” President Trump tweeted on Dec. 30. “Lives were saved by these heroes, and Texas laws allowing them to carry guns!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

10 thoughts on “Bloomberg Dismisses Texas Hero, Insists It Wasn’t His “Job” to Have a Gun or Decide to Shoot”

  1. How can you argue with a billionaire that always has armed guards with him. He’s on the mentality that only politician and rich people should be safe. Regular ordinary everyday people are DISPOSABLE.

  2. Mr. Bloomberg us no better than the proverbial ostrich with his head in the sand. He devalues the value of “commoners’s” lives and dismisses the actions of a wise and skillful gentle man who obviously saved lives. I believe Mr. Bloomberg has seen the video of the incident, and denies seeing it to give himself plausible deniability.

    How low will you go Mr. Bloomberg? Would you deny we are positively enjoined to protect the innocent? It’s ancient law, several millennium old.

  3. New Year 2020. Same story from Liberals. Nothing changes. Thankful people know about Mr Wilson.
    Here in Central California there are frequent shootings. Some churches have security. The cities have shootings and killings . The shooters are not found or reduced sentence as officials play the sanctuary game.
    Bloomberg is a danger to Freedom .His power is Media Money. Build the Wall, use CCW, KEEP freedom and Vote

  4. Little Micheal is not afraid of guns, he is afraid of you and I having them though. We might be able to reject his next Utopian idea if we stand with the constitution!

  5. How can you say that trump understands what the constitution means , he told his own cabinet that he would like to take “The guns first and worry about Due Process Later ” The bump stock ban was a gift to the Left in order for them to approve his Military Budget . he supports Red Flag laws . I am not the only one who remembers when Handgun control Inc, said back in the 70’s that their long term goal was to ban any gun accessory that would give them the presadent to ban magazines etc, yes I was a member of the NRA , Gun owners of America , and CA gun owners back then and they had been trying , but failing until trump gave them that Christmas present last year . This is why we Will lose our gun rights , we just refuse to admit that we keep voting for the lesser of the Evils , rather than fight to find good honest Candidates who will support the 2nd , I new we were in for a world of hurt when Americans turned a blind eye to senator Ron Paul in 08 and 12 , Sorry but American voters are so easly fooled and its not going to change any . You had a chance to vote for Thomas Jefferson and you blew it !!! Shame on you all , Prove me Wrong !!!

  6. Bloomberg is like any other Liberal. He was disappointed that there were not more casualties so their talking points would carry more clout.
    Better luck next time, Mike. Maybe there will be more casualties next time. Until you and ll of the other Liberals address the actual problem, there is always that chance for a next time.

  7. To concede a monopoly of violence to a state you can’t trust is absurd! Klan governor blackface has backed infanticide to murder millions of children, the majority of which will be children of “color”. Margret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood, was an avowed eugenics proponent! Do your own research and you will find that a black child in New York has a 50/50 chance for life and klan Governor black face would like to see those become the national average! Who’s the racist POS now?
    None of these communist democrats will own their past or admit to their future plans for America. Scum like this need to be hung on the courthouse lawn by the neck until dead, dead, dead!!
    NOT ONE MORE INCH, NOT ONE MORE LAW!!
    Sic semper tyranus!! MOLON LABE!!

  8. Bloomberg seems to have forgotten the fact that the general public does not benefit from the presence of armed security such as he enjoyed as an elected official, said armed security provided by Mr. and Mrs. Ordinary Citizen, whom he and others of similar ilk would have disarmed. Am I nuts, or is there something seriously out of wack with Bloomberg’s line of thinking?

Comments are closed.