Bloomberg takes aim at NRA in anti-gun crusade

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,484
4,902
113
Bloomberg takes aim at NRA in anti-gun crusade
Published time: March 24, 2013 08:48
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg attracted the ire of the National Rifle Association by announcing a pricey ad campaign that he hopes will “level the playing field” against the influence of America’s powerful gun lobby.

Bloomberg, who ranks among the top 10 wealthiest Americans, is bankrolling the $12 million television ad campaign for the Mayors Against Illegal Guns in an effort to get senators in ‘swing states’ to back gun control measures, including controversial background checks.

The ad campaign was announced on March 23, just days after Senate Democrats conceded defeat in their effort to reestablish a federal ban on assault-style weapons, which expired in 2004.

For many years, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has held sway over the US political with its large membership and financial clout. However, with a spate of recent mass shootings – the latest one at the Sandy Hook elementary school, where a lone gunman killed 26 people, 20 of them children – the powerful gun lobby has seen its past resilience challenged.

In fact, Bloomberg’s two advertisements, dubbed "Responsible" and "Family," deliver their message not to the traditional proponents of gun control, but rather to the very membership of the NRA.

In one ad, a bearded young man holds a shotgun while sitting in the back of a pickup truck.

He says he'll defend the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but adds "with rights come responsibilities." The apparent gun enthusiast then urges Congress to support background checks.

In the other spot, a hunter says "background checks have nothing to do with taking guns away from anyone." The man says background checks will prevent criminals and the mentally ill from getting their hands on weapons.



New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg speaks out for gun reform at a press conference on March 21, 2013 in New York City. (John Moore/Getty Images/AFP)

Bloomberg’s gun-control commercials will air in 13 states where the question of gun control remains an unresolved issue among voters (Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio and Pennsylvania). Senators are scheduled to continue the debate on federal gun control legislation next month following the Easter recess.

But Bloomberg will not be resting on his laurels. In addition to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the New York City mayor is also the driving force behind his super PAC, Independence USA, which will sponsor over 100 events nationwide in support of gun control legislation.

Meanwhile, the NRA remains confident that the American people will not allow Bloomberg, who is also responsible for placing restrictions against soda and salt consumption, to limit their constitutional rights

“What he is going to find out is that Americans don’t want to be told by some elitist billionaire what they can eat, drink and they damn well don’t want to be told how, when and where they can protect their families,” Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, told The New York Times.

A spokesman for the NRA criticized Bloomberg and the ad campaign, saying NRA staff and supporters would be calling senators and urging them to vote against any gun control legislation.

"What Michael Bloomberg is trying to do is ... intimidate senators into not listening to constituents and instead pledge their allegiance to him and his money," said spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, as quoted by AP.

Earlier this month, the New York City mayor appeared on CBS' ‘Face the Nation’ where he voiced support for an assault weapons ban, but agreed that a national background databank for gun purchases would be the most effective way of addressing America’s rise in gun-related violence.

"Federal law requires background checks when a gun dealer sells you a gun," Bloomberg said, "but no background check if the sale is done over the Internet or a gun show. Fourteen states have closed that loophole and in those 14 states the suicide rate is half the national average, and the number of women that get killed in domestic violence is something like 40 per cent less than in other states."

So background checks do work, he concluded.

NRA proponents, however, maintain their opposition to the background checks, saying that a federally controlled databank of gun owners is a violation of their privacy and constitutional rights, as well as a possible first step toward enacting a ban on various types of assault weapons.

Founded in 1871 as an organization devoted to protecting the Second Amendment, membership in the NRA peaked at 4.5 million members in 2013.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,041
6,058
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
NRA's biggest fear is that their mentally unstable members would never pass background checks and mental competency tests.....FFS!!!

LMFAO!!! .....NRA wants to protect the Right of their Retarded members to keeps as many military weapons as they please!!!....:crazy:

Conservatives and INDEED.....'funny' peeps!!!.....:crazy:
 

cunning linguist

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2009
1,620
75
48
Good luck, $12 million is too small a budget for the web of lies Bloomberg et al. need to construct to deceive the American public about the characteristics and capabilities of one of the most common firearms available and subsequently erode their rights to self defense and freedom. Especially when such hypocritical elites are unwilling to lead by example and have their personal protection details downgrade their own weaponry to comply with their ridiculous proposed laws.




 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
Good luck, $12 million is too small a budget for the web of lies Bloomberg et al. need to construct to deceive the American public about the characteristics and capabilities of one of the most common firearms available and subsequently erode their rights to self defense and freedom. Especially when such hypocritical elites are unwilling to lead by example and have their personal protection details downgrade their own weaponry to comply with their ridiculous proposed laws.
Why didn't you just say POTUS?

It's not hypocritical. There are all sorts of reasons that make exceptions valid and they've been covered before. Considering the number of people who threaten him, 30x a day, he needs the best possible protection. Considering he is an IPP, he gets to operate under different guidelines. Your 'if we can't you can't' point is just plain silly.
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
11,134
2,465
113
Especially when such hypocritical elites are unwilling to lead by example and have their personal protection details downgrade their own weaponry to comply with their ridiculous proposed laws.
This argument of putting arming limits limits on government officials because Joe Blow can't get into an equal fire fight with public sanctioned weapons is dumb but points to a paranoia that permeates the assault ban opponents. One of these back woods hillbillies stated on TV that the same weapons ban should apply to the U.S. armed forces. A lot of the resistance comes from people who want the assault weapons for militias equipping themselves to have the capability of fighting the U.S. government if they feel their right wing racist views of america are in perceived jeopardy.
 

cunning linguist

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2009
1,620
75
48
This argument of putting arming limits limits on government officials because Joe Blow can't get into an equal fire fight with public sanctioned weapons is dumb but points to a paranoia that permeates the assault ban opponents. One of these back woods hillbillies stated on TV that the same weapons ban should apply to the U.S. armed forces. A lot of the resistance comes from people who want the assault weapons for militias equipping themselves to have the capability of fighting the U.S. government if they feel their right wing racist views of america are in perceived jeopardy.
The argument of imposing irrational, arbitrary, ineffective and unenforceable limitations on responsible gun owners, who represent the overwhelming majority, because of the actions of a few is downright moronic. Many manufacturers and distributors are getting on board with the idea and "closing the police loophole"; refusing to provide goods and services to law enforcement in jurisdictions passing unconstitutional laws like in New York State discouraging the enforcement of such asinine restrictions, as ultimately, they won't affect the criminal element they were intended to. A lot of the resistance comes from people who realize that new regulations are nothing more than political grandstanding and band aid solutions which have little if any positive affect on public safety.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
The argument of imposing irrational, arbitrary, ineffective and unenforceable limitations on responsible gun owners, who represent the overwhelming majority, because of the actions of a few is downright moronic. Many manufacturers and distributors are getting on board with the idea and "closing the police loophole"; refusing to provide goods and services to law enforcement in jurisdictions passing unconstitutional laws like in New York State discouraging the enforcement of such asinine restrictions, as ultimately, they won't affect the criminal element they were intended to. A lot of the resistance comes from people who realize that new regulations are nothing more than political grandstanding and band aid solutions which have little if any positive affect on public safety.
They aren't irrational, arbitrary, ineffective nor unenforceable, but aside from that. Where are you getting this information on the manufacturers and distributors are trying to throttle police? As far as stopping the criminals, if less effort is needed dealing with non criminal problems, then the time and money can be spent on the criminals element. There nothing wrong with a band aid for the short term, it's a start.
 

cunning linguist

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2009
1,620
75
48
They aren't irrational, arbitrary, ineffective nor unenforceable, but aside from that. Where are you getting this information on the manufacturers and distributors are trying to throttle police? As far as stopping the criminals, if less effort is needed dealing with non criminal problems, then the time and money can be spent on the criminals element. There nothing wrong with a band aid for the short term, it's a start.
You're right, decreasing magazine capacity further from 10 rounds to 7 in New York State isn't irrational, arbitrary, ineffective or unenforceable at all., I'm sure all the criminals are just itching to comply. :rolleyes:

http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/

I agree less effort should be spent dealing with non criminal problems, which is why they need to stop proposing and attempting to enforce asinine restrictions that criminals don't follow anyways.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
You're right, decreasing magazine capacity further from 10 rounds to 7 in New York State isn't irrational, arbitrary, ineffective or unenforceable at all., I'm sure all the criminals are just itching to comply. :rolleyes:

http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/

I agree less effort should be spent dealing with non criminal problems, which is why they need to stop proposing and attempting to enforce asinine restrictions that criminals don't follow anyways.
It's less irrational that saying a gun with a 30 round capacity and can rip off 100 rounds a minute is a hunting rifle just because it's painting in mossy oak camoflage. The move is a start.

Gee, a web site about a supposed 'loophole', listing stuff the police get, but no one said they didn't have access to stuff the general public didn't. Now where are you getting the idea that 'major' companies are refusing to sell this stuff to police?
 

cunning linguist

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2009
1,620
75
48
It's less irrational that saying a gun with a 3 round capacity is a hunting rifle. The move is a start.
7 round magazines don't even exist for most handguns. That coupled with the recent demonization of the most common firearm action (semi-automatic...one round per trigger press, remember?) is definitely a start; a start to an unconstitutional disarmament agenda.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
7 round magazines don't even exist for most handguns. That coupled with the recent demonization of the most common firearm action (semi-automatic...one round per trigger press, remember?) is definitely a start; a start to an unconstitutional disarmament agenda.
The unconstitutional argument is very debatable, clearly there are work-arounds that allow past restrictions to be put in place, but i'll let the better-informed on TERB discuss those. The easiest way for the police to buy something from these companies, if they really need to is to buy them from a third party, so this whole trip is just for show.

Still no list of major companies not selling to the police? Something tells me it's a bunch of bit player crying out for this. Somebody might use the word crackpot.
On that whole list the only one i recognize is Barrett, out of 140. it would be interesting how much the companies sell to the authorities at this point. It won't mean much because the police will just buy from somewhere else.

Reading the comments makes me wonder if there were any contributions from the triple digit population of the USA.
 

cunning linguist

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2009
1,620
75
48
The unconstitutional argument is very debatable, clearly there are work-arounds that allow past restrictions to be put in place, but i'll let the
better-informed on TERB discuss those.

Still no list of major companies not selling to the police? Something tells me it's a couple of bit player crying out for this. Somebody might use the word crackpot.
None of the mega manufacturers like Glock, S&W or Ruger are participating yet and hopefully elected officials come to their senses and abandon their irrational campaign against responsible gun owners before it becomes necessary. However, 140 and counting isn't a small number and there are a fair number of well known and well renowned AR manufacturers on that list to include LaRue, Spike's Tactical, Rock River Arms, Stoner. Magpul also make some of the most sought after AR mags, guess what, they're not selling to LEOs in those states and are probably moving out of Colorado, taking a bunch of jobs with them.
 

cunning linguist

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2009
1,620
75
48
The irony, the actor in his ad entitled "Responsibility" is in fact being irresponsible, sitting around with his finger on the trigger; a handing practice that even the "evil" NRA advocates. What a joke.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
None of the mega manufacturers like Glock, S&W or Ruger are participating yet and hopefully elected officials come to their senses and abandon their irrational campaign against responsible gun owners before it becomes necessary. However, 140 and counting isn't a small number and there are a fair number of well known and well renowned AR manufacturers on that list to include LaRue, Spike's Tactical, Rock River Arms, Stoner. Magpul also make some of the most sought after AR mags, guess what, they're not selling to LEOs in those states and are probably moving out of Colorado, taking a bunch of jobs with them.
140 may sound like a lot until you think about how many US arms manufacturing companies there are in the arms industry, ~5,500. Not what I would call an overwhelming wave of support. As said if the LEA's want something badly, they will buy through a third party. These companies can bark all they want, for political reasons, but it won't mean much. Surprise surprise, all these companies produce AR-15 type weapons.
 

cunning linguist

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2009
1,620
75
48
140 may sound like a lot until you think about how many US arms manufacturing companies there are in the arms industry, ~5,500. Not what I would call an overwhelming wave of support. As said if the LEA's want something badly, they will buy through a third party. These companies can bark all they want, for political reasons, but it won't mean much. Surprise surprise, all these companies produce AR-15 type weapons.
Guess what kind of firearm has been replacing cruiser shotguns for the past 20+ years? AR-15s, must be for all those schools that cops shoot up. :rolleyes:

This list also includes distributors who, surprise don't sell ammunition to LEOs either. The substitution effect applies to criminals as well, on top of the fact they already ignore laws anyways. Politicians can bark all they want, these proposed legislations won't do anyone any good.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
If the lies are to be believed, it is the only reason to own these so called "assault rifles".
So now you've joined TERBs wannabe Shock Jocks Rockslinger and making things up to support your point. The AR -15 was designed for the military to do one thing, kill people, lots of people. The fact that it doesn't have full auto as is doesn't change that point.
 

cunning linguist

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2009
1,620
75
48
So now you've joined TERBs wannabe Shock Jocks Rockslinger and making things up to support your point. The AR -15 was designed for the military to do one thing, kill people, lots of people. The fact that it doesn't have full auto as is doesn't change that point.
We've covered this already, the M16 was designed to save the infantryman weight, hence the smaller and less powerful cartridge. Socially acceptable hunting rifles are derived from military firearms and there's nothing that makes AR-15s more dangerous than any other semi-auto carbine, especially considering that they are chambered for one of the weakest centrefire rifle cartidges. The attempt to demonize AR-15s is nothing more than fear mongering.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Comprehensive background checks ought not to be so controversial. They're a good idea. Creating a registry of people who have passed a basic police background check does not create a registry of firearms owners--in fact, being in that registry would be a reasonable precondition for certain jobs, as well as firearms purchases. Thus someone appearing in the registry doesn't even necessarily indicate that they are a firearms owner--just that they have certified that they have no serious criminal or mental health issues. Don't call it a firearms background check, call it a police clearance.

The assault rifle ban, etc., is just dumb, it's going to be very costly and not save any lives. That sort of thing is stupid rhetoric--but there's a whole lot of easy to do stuff that's effective. Background checks for starters. The other big one is some sort of mandatory safety training--it doesn't even need to be onerous, and could be taught by the guy who sells you the gun, in any gun store. But it would make a big difference--while it's not a majority of deaths, there are quite a few in the US who are killed by really, really stupid accidental discharges that were incredibly preventable.

In any case the debate in the US has become polarized around the extremes, one side demanding ridiculous bans, and the other side insisting that even basic safety violates their rights.

Hopefully what emerges from the middle is a sensible combination of background checks and ideally some safety training programs as well, stuff that actually might make a difference.
 
Toronto Escorts