the billionaire is buying him some grass roots action. Just like MAIG keeps growing.

Sound like two efforts that I support.

Intensity of a political movement is not something money can buy. The gun rights movement has million of people who are extremely dedicated and volunteer much of their free time to the cause, the gun control movement not so much.

It's true that a small number of gun nuts are extremely motivated, but if you look at the poll numbers on things like background checks, the people in favor are over 90% of the population. Hopefully Bloomberg will be able to counteract the money and influence of the gun lobby and finally get some laws passed that the overwhelming majority of Americans support.

The fact is the gun issue is pretty much a non-issue for 95% of american voters.

Remind the other 95% that our gun policy is being determined by 5% of Americans who are loony gun fanatics.

We saner types simply have no voice...and money has certainly been a huge part of why this gun shit is so out of control. Add brainwashing from FuksNoise, the "BOO!" Factor and a Flag + Cross, that's all the mindless masses have heard.

Another voice, loud and equally publicized would be a beginning of some sanity...hopefully.

Last edited Wed Apr 16, 2014, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Like other gun owners in this thread, I have bought most of my firearms through an FFL, and the transaction was of course accompanied by a background check. However, private sales are legal in NC, so I have bought a pistol or two from acquaintances. The only gun I've sold (a Century CETME whose ergonomics did not work for me) I sold through an FFL because I wanted the person buying this rifle to pass a background check before laying hands on my rifle.

So you've basically got me, a pretty staunch 2nd Amendment (and all Constitutional rights) advocate, as an ally on the background check issue. My only conditions are to work out the following issues:

1) It can't become a back-door gun registry. The police do not need lists of who owns what. In places where those types of lists get started (Australia, California, etc.), confiscation too often follows.

2) A framework for reasonable lending becomes important: Can I allow a range buddy to try my firearm out while target shooting together without it becoming a "transfer" and triggering a background check?

3) Families need to be able to hand guns down without the gov't getting involved: Father-to-son, grandmother-to-granddaughter, uncle to niece, etc. - some level of blood ties and kinship needs to trump the requirement for background checks and allow for a family transfer that would otherwise be legal (i.e.- a father would not be able to give a firearm to a son who is already a convicted felon).

I await your suggestions on these fronts.

-app

According to polls, so do most Americans. Having said that, I don't think there's much chance of that actually happening, so I don't think you have much to worry about. And even if there were a registry, the chance of it leading to a mass gun confiscation is zero.

As far as the other two, I'm sure there's some way to work these out -- they don't seem like insurmountable barriers. Some states already have UBC, so there are examples to work with.

More to the point, though, is that in the status quo, the NRA has been so successful that the de facto standard for any potential gun regulation is that gun owners can't be even slightly inconvenienced, regardless of how great the potential for saving lives. This is why some counter-force like Bloomberg is necessary, just to bring some sanity into the debate.

gun and ammo manufacturers. Don't take credit for what the lobby's money does. You can't possibly influence a politician like gun lobby money can!

they should just plop so easily into the hands of criminals and those with mental problems.

but, is there any reason to believe or trust that if Bloombergs campaign is successful in achieving that, that he won't eventually take it to another level?

Which would be great, and save a lot of lives, but if we can just get universal background checks, it will be a definite step in the right direction.

but Feinstein screwed that up.

Crazy, I know, but I tend to blame the people who voted against the bill for its failure.

Between two people?

Where does the 90% figure come from? What study /poll? Link? Sorry I'm new here.

I've heard that figure alot, but wanted a source.

50,000 hand guns a year is enough to supply all the 9000 murders by handguns every year.

That's assuming that 1 in 5 stolen guns will be used in a murder, which is way high. If the only guns available to criminals were stolen guns, the murder rate would drop dramatically.

We're not talking about eliminating all gun crime, just reducing it. The more difficult it is for a criminal to get a gun, the less gun crimes we're going to have.

Heroin: illegal to manufacture, sell, possess and use, but easily available to anyone looking to buy it

Guns: legal to manufacture, sell, possess and use. Get it now? No background check will eliminate 5% of the criminals from getting them.

Drugs and guns are completely different, I'm not sure why pro-gun people always jump to that analogy.

The real question is, how are they not different? The supply, demand, and distribution are all completely different. The markets for the two bear basically zero resemblance to each other. It's like asking how is the market for eBooks different from the market for crude oil. Where to begin?
--A gun is a heavy piece of metal, drugs are substances distributed in little plastic bags
--Guns are made in factories, drugs are either grown or manufactured in labs
--Drugs are addictive
--The market for illegal drugs is a lot bigger than for illegal guns
--Drugs are a repeat purchase, guns are generally a one-time thing
--etc.

To appreciate the difference, just look at what happens in countries where both are banned or at least highly regulated. Let's take the UK for example. It's really hard to get a gun there. Drugs, pretty easy.

Sure, a determined criminal who really wants a gun can probably get one in the UK, but most people there, including people who commit crimes, just forego the gun, not worth the effort or risk of getting one.

14% bought the gun legally, 40% got it from a friend or family, 40% from an illegal source. So what part of the background check you want would have stopped any of them from getting it?
Are you going to stop someone from borrowing a gun? Adam Lanza took his moms. How do you stop it?

And LOL on your guns are heavy BS, 1.2 million cars are stolen a year.

Wishing for something and reality are two different things.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Background checks would have both a direct effect and also an indirect effect of less black market guns to begin with. Gun registration would of course go a lot further in this direction. Obviously it isn't going to stop all gun crimes, like I said.

Yes, Adam Lanza took the guns from his mom. On the other hand, the Colombine shooters got theirs via straw purchase at a gun show, which at the time didn't require background checks in Colorado. Like I said, it won't stop everyone, just some people.

Every gun I've ever purchased has been preceded by a background check, except for one. A good friend was hard up for some cash and sold me one from his collection for cheap. I traded it the next day at a local FFL and picked up what I really wanted (a ruger LCR .357, which I carry to this day on my ankle everywhere I go. I keep it loaded with Hornady 38 special critical defense loads). Of course the trade transaction had a background check as well.

". . . . . . ruger LCR .357, which I carry to this day on my ankle everywhere I go. I keep it loaded with Hornady 38 special critical defense loads."

Gunners crack me up when they start talking about "tactical" weapons, "critical defense loads," and similar irrational gun crud outside a war zone.

"Critical Defense" is the freaking name of the product, not some gun porn fantasy. If I tell someone about my digital camera, I specifically describe it as a Nikon D5200. There's no difference here except you getting in a huff. Relax.

I bet you would $#!T yourself if I told you that the name of the 9mm loads I carry are called Federal Tactical HST.

http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/handgun.aspx?id=1013

But I do understand that irrational behavior.

My life has been saved by a gun. I have administered CPR both successfully and unsuccessfully. I have yet to be saved by a defibrillator.

I just loves me some 1%-ers who use the word "us" when addressing the proles.

"I just loves me some 1%-ers who use the word "us" when addressing the proles."

Almost as much as I am bemused by deflective posts containing little more than petulance and irrelevance.


(Insert distinction without a difference here)

Bloomberg should use it to surveil, investigate and sting selected gun sellers.

Go totally O'Keefe on them.

I don't mean all minorities just like the bad ones and stuff.

Bloomberg is the one who started this in NYC

Bloomie: GIVE THAT MONEY TO HOMELESS SHELTERS WHERE IT MIGHT DO SOME GOOD!

A fucking BILLIONAIRE whose MAJOR plan is to fight an organization dedicated to protecting a constitutional right... rather than using his TENS OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS to help people who aren't afraid of guns...

Priceless.

He's an ageing white man who's years are numbered... NO FUCKING WAY he spends all his money before he dies. The good he could do, were he REALLY concerned with doing good with his money? Fuck that.

FUCK him and his gold-plated faucets, his limousines, his chefs and household staff. Fuck his gardeners, fuck his personal assistants, and fuck his ARMED SECURITY PERSONNEL.

I hope they find a way to stuff ALL his money into his MOUTH when he's dead.

How's THAT for hatred of the 1%?

Although I disapprove strongly with the NRA's (perceived) stance that everyone should have unrestricted access to all types of rifles and guns, I am not in favor of responsible people owning and using them. If the NRA were to acknowledge that there are far too many people in this country who leave weapons around untaught children, or on restaurant benches, or who become easily frustrated and do foolish things, and that some sort of proving yourself to be responsible is a good thing; then people like myself lighten up a bit.

I grew up shooting. I would be out on opening day every year, whether it was putting venison, bird, or small game on the table. Sometimes shooting a couple of bricks a months while walking the trails kept my eye good. I worked a dairy farm in high school for spending money and served three enlistments in the Navy.

To put an honest face on this, we know that someone intent on doing damage is going to do exactly that. If he pounds nails into a baseball bat to make a mace, or slips a cartridge into a pipe the laws are meaningless. I would not be so anti-gun if the NRA would speak in a reasonable voice and acknowledge that there are far too many who should not have weapons, that second amendment rights exist, but first you've got to pass the test for the privilege of owning and keeping one, instead of just being able to rent one at the range where it stays.

Your use of that word in the context of owning and keeping a firearm is part of the problem right there. Since 1968, our nation has endured some 40 years of increasing rhetoric designed to convince us that owning a gun was merely a privilege bestowed upon you by the Powers That Be instead of a Constitutional right. But you and I are also intelligent enough to know the dangers of leaving unsecured guns around where kids or the mentally ill can get them, and we adjust our behavior accordingly, not our rights.

A well-regulated militia is also a well-educated militia. That's why I always stress education, education, for the love of all that's holy, education. At home, at school, in the community, education should never stop. That way, when your son goes to purchase his first gun ever, you know he won't screw up instead of crossing your fingers and hoping for the best.

Education is what separates militia like you and I from jackals like the Taliban, Janjaweed, and The Order.

It's too bad there isn't an elementary school course that could teach how to evaluate your surroundings at all times, know what your options are, and how not to panic. But if that was even presented as an idea we would be deafened by the screams of abuse, etc, etc.

My kids grew up knowing these basic things. They'll do just fine no matter what happens around them. (un-common sense, I guess)

From the article about Bloomberg:

"Women, and mothers in particular, will be the focus of the organizing and outreach, a path that he and his advisers have modeled after groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving."

Especially coming from him... The ultimate symbol Mr. Nanny State...

He'll preach to his own choir, everyone will nod heads in unison and nothing will happen.

for the GOP.

Is it just me being paranoid or is there something dubious about a Republican politician spending obscene amounts of money for policy endorsements that Democratic candidates attach to but ultimately get Republicans elected? It's like he's buying ads to sucker Dems into taking a losing position.

... I think this is a guy who gets off on imposing his will onto others.

He seemed to revel in it during his NYC time and this might just be his latest attempt.

A mile wide and an inch deep. He's flushing money down the crapper.

I hope someone has informed him he could be using that money to more effectively ban sugary drinks and harass minorities on the street. I mean we wouldn't want him feeling like he wasted his money.

yes me Huzpa, my reason is simple, $50 million is an amount that will attract the wrong crowd who has no inclination of doing
the right thing. Mr Bloomberg is not going to have time to oversee or micro manage this project. With me I'm homeless and fearless
furthermore I have no affiliation to any of these mongrels so it makes for an entertaining episode, so whaddya say Mr Bloom?


Don't laugh people I'm real series.



Otherwise, it's a wasted project.

He set the NYPD on Occupy. He had the NYPD profiling, engaging in Stop and Frisk. Spying on people completely outside the NYPD's jurisdiction. Beating people. Shooting people. He had the NYPD acting like his own group of Stormtroopers.

Played games to get reelected just like Vladimir Putin did in Russia. Telling people what they should drink and eat. In short the classic Authoritarian who think he knows best for everyone else. But because he's taking on the "eeevul" guns he's got a fucking halo.

Fuck him, and everyone of his billions of dollars.

and turn down the Trojan Horse

I'm willing to see what they can do.

Nobody else seems to be able to stop the NRA.

Apparently he doesn't think we aren't as smart or as wise as him so he thinks he should be the one to decide what's best for us.

Remember, he gets bodyguards everywhere he goes