As "crazy" as post #19 may seem, I believe it to be accurate.
For one single person looking to encroach on the rights of millions, it would appear that there is an underlying agenda.
When Reichsführer Bloomberg donates or goes on an advertisement spree to disarm people, whom does that benefit? You? Me?
First and foremostly it benefits him, if it didn't why would he donate? Sure somebody can be that convicted in their beliefs to donate to any cause, but wanting to disarm everyone while maintaining an armed security force for your self says something.
Secondly it benefits the state/ government. Yes, it's great to be that elevated in society that you can either afford private security or you get police protection due to position or wealth. The rest of us proletariats, SELF defense is just that. We either can't afford to have private security or we are not important enough that it is provided to us via tax payer.
When the right to have guns is taken away, so is the idea of self defense. Using a gun, where outlawed, in self defense is a crime. Say John Q. Public (living in the bloomberg fantasy) shoots someone in self defense and gets arrested. Sure, any REASONABLE court won't find him guilty of murder when the facts show John Q. shot only after being stabbed, but he probably will be charged with a bogus felony for carrying/shooting/owning a prohibited object. Thus leaving John Q. With enormous fines, fees, penalties and the such all paid to the state, and your not even talking legal fees.