The Bloomberg Grant

The Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms, subject to reasonable restrictions. The question is: What should those restrictions look like? [More] 

See, that's what statists think--that "rights" come from government.  And because they're surrounded by toadies and have constituents who let them get away with anything as long as the redistribution keeps coming, arrogant megalomaniacs like this operate under the illusion that "L'Etat c'est moi."

The thing is, the very case he cites, as well as long-established precedent, specifically repudiate his prefatory assertion:

As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . . 

Which means, of course, that he's LYING, and there are no "Authorized Journalists" either informed or honest enough to call him on it, or to let those relying on them for complete reporting know about it--but in this case, the tinpot is using his own megaphone, which creates an ethical conundrum of its own: How can the press be government watchdogs if the press is the government?

As for what "those restrictions should look like," I suppose if a citizen militia needed to be activated in time of emergency, we'd want to bring suitable equipment with us (meaning we'd have to possess it in the first place), to assemble and deploy under standards of training and discipline, and to fit in to a chain of command so that our efforts could be coordinated to best restore a system where freedom is protected and can be exercised in peace.

Think Furious Mike would go along with that?