The Liar in Winter: Michael Bloomberg in retirement -- The curtain goes up. Enter the devil, stage left. Exit, the big finish in Act V.

"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste." The Rolling Stones, "Sympathy for the Devil."

While Bloomberg News gets all dewy eyed about "Hizzoner" Mike leaving power: "Bloomberg era comes to a close in New York," gelded Connecticut firearm owners line up meekly to register their rifles and standard capacity magazines.

Charles Gillette, who was registering magazines, told the news station that he would have a problem with it if the state was trying to ban the magazines or firearms, but said “if they want to just know where they are, that’s fine with me.”

No doubt when they are subsequently confiscated, Mr. Gillette can console himself by reflecting that although he is being disarmed at least they're not herding him and his family on the cattle cars -- yet.

And somewhere Michael Bloomberg is smiling at this image of American firearm owners bending to his will. Although, he might lose the smirk when he discovered, as is being reported today, that the numbers aren't adding up, and state officials are at a loss to explain it. I can explain it, and if you think about it, so can you.

Bloomberg, though, is very much on the minds of gun rights activists these days. Dave Workman asks: "Is Michael Bloomberg set to become most dangerous man in USA?"

No longer encumbered by the responsibilities of public office, Bloomberg – the man who infamously observed back in March that “I think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom” in response to a question about his ban on high-capacity soda drinks, which had recently been overturned in court – has a fortune to spend on elections and issues, including Washington state’s looming initiative battle. To a lot of people, that kind of power and influence is dangerous to their concept of liberty.

As reported months ago by the Washington Times, Bloomberg told NBC’s David Gregory, “I think I have a responsibility, and I think you and all your viewers have responsibilities, to try to make this country safer for our families and for each other. And if I can do that by spending some money and by taking the NRA from being the only voice to being one of the voices so the public can really understand the issues, then I think my money would be well spent, and I think I have an obligation to do that.”

Bloomberg's ego and self-absorption are legendary. Witness this cover story in New York Magazine:

Quizzed by a reporter on his reaction to cover, he called it "great" and said, "I've said this a thousand times -- I like what I see in the mirror." The story, for the strong of stomach, can be found here.

He was asked, "When you’re criticized for imposing a “nanny state” . . ." Bloomberg blurted out "Oh, come on! Everybody loves it!"

And on guns, he was asked "Isn’t it counterproductive to be going after Democratic senators when their replacements are going to be far more conservative?" Bloomberg was unapologetic:

The way that all these single-issue advocacy organizations work — the NRA, Gun Owners of America, the AARP—is they say, “Vote with us, or we’re going to go after you.” And if you say, “Well, my opponent is worse than me,” they say, “We don’t care, we’re going after you. It’s your vote we care about. We’ll deal with him if we need to.” You have to have a counter to that. This, to me, is the most important issue. And incidentally, it is not Democrats we are going after — it is whatever party happens to control the Senate, and if we get legislation passed there, we will go after whatever party happens to control the House. It is not because they’re Democrats. It looks like it would be Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House, but who knows? These are people’s lives! Twelve thousand people this year will be killed by guns. Nineteen thousand will commit suicide.

And Bloomberg is here to save them all. Or so he would have you believe. but then I have always said that you should pay attention to what politicians do, not what they say, for the lie is the attendant of every evil.

Collectivists of all types, and the tyrannies they breed, are nothing if not opportunists. In this, they resemble nothing so much as street criminals. I was recently reminded of this by a post on AR15.com by one "BurnedOutLEO" on the subject of how to deal with armed robbers -- a subject in which he was an expert.

Some may object to me calling hold up men "the enemy". You can call them whatever you like. I can assure you however they are as deadly an enemy as you will find anywhere but the battlefield. Even many soldiers probably lack the viciousness and utter disregard for life most hold up men possess.

No one wakes up in the morning one day and decides to become an armed robber. It is a gradual process that requires some experience and desensitizing. Before a man will pick up a gun and threaten to kill people who have done him no harm in order to get their usually meager possessions he has to get comfortable with some things.

He has to get used to seeing others as objects for him to exploit. (Emphasis supplied, MBV) He has to accept he may be killed while robbing. He has to accept the felony conviction for Robbery will haunt him all his life. He has to accept he may need to kill a completely innocent person to get away with his crime.

This is a process that starts with stealing candy at the corner store as a child. It progresses through bigger property crimes that may also involve violence. But one day G gets tired of selling his stolen property for nothing and decides it would be better to steal cash. Cut out all that tiresome sales stuff.

Keep in mind many petty thieves, auto burglars, residential and commercial burglars, paper thieves, and hustlers will get to that point and decide not to become armed robbers. Most will. It is a special group of outliers who decide threatening to kill people for a few dollars is the way to go.

Once a man starts armed robbing he has crossed a line most won't. Don't forget that when you are looking these bastards in the eye. Their decision to kill you is already made. Your life means nothing to him. Only his does. (Emphasis supplied, MBV) His sole motivation for not killing you is he doesn't want a murder case. He has already accepted he may pick one up though.

Some of you will recall this post where I related:

My daughter Zoe once got in trouble at school for defining the difference between communism and socialism. Not surprisingly, she repeated the short answer that I had taught her: "The difference between a communist and socialist is that a socialist is a communist who has not found his AK-47 and the will to use it, and a communist is a socialist with an AK-47 who IS ready to use it."

I was called by the "social studies" teacher on that one and went into the school for a visit. What, I asked was wrong with that answer? As he sputtered, I asked a second question. "Have YOU ever been a socialist or a communist?" "Well, no," he answered. "Let me tell you something then -- I have been BOTH a socialist AND a communist and believe me I know what I'm talking about and you most definitely do not." My daughter was not disciplined.

Once someone has decided that he has a right to rob you of your liberty, your property and even your life, the difference is only one of degree and opportunity. Whether it is a street criminal or a bloody-handed tyrant, the principle is the same. Indeed, the psychology is virtually identical. The difference between the mugger and proto-tyrants like Bloomberg is merely one of scale, and Bloomberg operates on a vaster stage because that is what his own psychology requires. Monumental egos need monumental goals to satisfy them. The petty criminal may be satisfied with your wallet. A constitutional criminal like Bloomberg -- a prospective thief of an entire people's liberty, property and life -- requires more. And more. And more. As James Manson, the fictional London banker and industrialist in Frederick Forsyth's The Dogs of War said:

“Knocking off a bank or an armoured truck is merely crude. Knocking off an entire republic has, I feel, a certain style.”

Bloomberg believes that he has a right to rob us of our traditional, God-given and inalienable liberties for two reasons. First because he is who he is, the great ego barely contained within his own skin who writes large on a vast canvas. Second, because he can.

He has not yet internalized the cosmic lessons of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Unfortunately for the street criminals described by BurnedOutLEO, that usually doesn't happen short of a bullet in the brain. As far as Bloomberg's appetites are concerned, if he ever really manages to start the civil war that he seems to be seeking, no combination of armed guards and green zones will save him from an entire people's righteous wrath. When you play the big tyrant on a big stage, you shouldn't be surprised by the big finish in Act V.

LATER: And David Codrea's right, this is a huge threat that is not being taken seriously by our side.