search
top

Bloomberg Buying Ads

As we’ve said, there’s not way to buy a fully automatic assault rifle at a gun show without a background check, but that’s not stopping Bloomberg from buying ad time to try to drum up support for denying constitutional rights with no due process by scare mongering among the public.

This is the kind of propaganda the Brady folks, nor other gun control groups, have the funding for anymore, which shows that MAIG and Bloomberg are really the last organization remaining credible threat to the Second Amendment.

29 Responses to “Bloomberg Buying Ads”

  1. Freiheit says:

    “Terrorists have purchased 1300 weapons in 7 years…”

    Thats it? 200 guns a year?

    More importantly they’ve had these weapons for 7 years. The only terrorist motivated shooting I can think of is John Lee Malvo.

    How many weapons have been purchased by non-terrorists in 7 years? I don’t want anyone to get shot, but there is a rifle behind every blade of grass. I challenge the terrorists to come get some.

  2. Freiheit says:

    Just remembered Fort Hood. No way in hell a medical officer would have gotten a gun if not for the gun show loophole, right Mr. Bloomberg?

  3. Weer'd Beard says:

    Freiheit, Don’t forget the Trolly Square Mall shooting, tho the media refuses to admit that this was also another Muslim committing Jihad.

  4. mikeb302000 says:

    The way I see it, Sebastian, you and your friends are the real threat to the 2nd Amendment. You’ve pretty much succeeded in bastardizing it into unrecognizability. Then you’ve repeated your nonsense so much that you begin to believe your own bullshit.

    The ACLU has it right, and many other intelligent and knowledgeable people, there is no right except the collective one in which citizens make up a militia.

    I go further, of course. Since the concept of militia as it was understood in 1790 has no relevance today, so the 2A has no relevance today, NONE.

    For you guys to resist background checks on all gun sales based on this twisted manipulation of the 2A is bizarre. The irony of it is you hurt yourselves. By maintaining lax gun laws your critics have ammunition with which to attack you. If you were at all smart, you’d be the ones fighting for the basic common sense gun control laws, the very ones you fight against. The result would be such a decrease in gun violence that you opponents would be silenced and you guys would still have you guns to play with.

  5. Jacob says:

    Mike,

    Your side lost that argument. Get over it.

  6. Freiheit says:

    I’m not sure I should wander down this path, but for having bought all those guns whats kept the terrorists from shooting fewer people than the Crips, Bloods, and Zapatas?

  7. JayF says:

    mikeb: “The ACLU has it right, and many other intelligent and knowledgeable people, there is no right except the collective one in which citizens make up a militia.”

    mikeb, you give joy to the cause of anti-abortion advocates. They too believe that since many people disagree with SCOTUS, they and their representatives may ignore the Court’s ruling.

  8. Weer'd Beard says:

    “By maintaining lax gun laws your critics have ammunition with which to attack you.”

    And yet even with “Lax Gun Laws” you STILL managed to acquired guns criminally.

    Is there any wonder why you refuse to give details about how you acquired those guns and how you disposed of them?

    You’re living proof on why your side are crooks and liars.

  9. JayF says:

    mikeb: “The irony of it is you hurt yourselves. By maintaining lax gun laws your critics have ammunition with which to attack you. If you were at all smart, you’d be the ones fighting for the basic common sense gun control laws, the very ones you fight against. The result would be such a decrease in gun violence that you opponents would be silenced”

    What a great idea, mikeb! With all the places that have gun control in the world, surely that has happened many times.

    mikeb, can you tell us about some of the places where “basic” gun control laws were enacted, and opponents of gun ownership were “silenced” as a result (and harsher gun laws did not follow)?

  10. The Second Anonymous says:

    Jay

    I think mike meant communist China, when common sense gun laws [gun ban] was passed when the commies came into power, they killed 100 million Chinese.

    Ok that might be an extreme case, I think he meant like UK, when guns were banned in the late 90s, it took 10 years but UK is now the number 1 violent country in whole of Europe.

    Ok, that might be another extreme case, I think he meant Australia, when guns were banned, violent entries went up 300%.

    OK, that might be another, isolated case, I think he meant Germany, where most guns are banned, and pistols are heavily regulated, where they had much more violent school shootings then USA, but no one bothers to report on it.

    Or maybe he meant Mexico, where guns are basically banned, and civilians are stuck between cartels and the military and getting slaughtered.

    Oh, he’s gonna say but all the guns came from USA, and he’ll ignore the fact that these guns went to Mexico by the ATF, an agency that was supposed to regulate the strict laws in the USA, and he’ll ignore the fact that the existing gun laws were already enough to prevent the guns going there [where gun dealers informed the ATF but were told to let the guns walk].

    OK, that might just be another extreme, isolated country… I am sure if we take out all the civilized nations in the world, and imagine we live in a fantasy unicorn rainbow land, it might work.

    Then human quickly realized those darn unicorns have horns, and the bad guys quickly removed said-horn to stab others for rainbow drops. Then the good guys will have their own unicorn-horn. Then the Brady rainbow bunch and anti-horners will come out of thin air, claiming we need to pass laws against the evil multi-assault-unicorn-tips.

    That, or he’ll just recite whatever that’s closest to him.

  11. Drang says:

    …there’s not way to buy a fully automatic assault rifle at a gun show without a background check…
    I wish all it took was a background check.
    Can’t buy here in WA at all.
    Can’t buy without first getting the tax stamp for Class III from ATFE.
    And yet, a traitorous Jewish American scumbag spouts some BS on the intardt00bz, and Sugarman, Helmke, and Brady (and Mikey B and probably JAPete, too) get all hot and bothered.

  12. Weer'd Beard says:

    Drang you just haven’t looked in the right place!

    Hell even in Massachusetts I can buy a complete and operational RPG over the internet, no questions asked!
    http://tinyurl.com/442cs5a

    If that’s true you can probably buy a Machine Gun! ;)

  13. Chas says:

    “… MAIG and Bloomberg are really the last organization remaining credible threat to the Second Amendment.”

    That’s good news. MAIG is a fraud. They’re against illegal guns? Not a peep out of them about the thousands of illegal guns ATF sent to Mexico. On the other hand, they’re adamantly opposed to legal CCW. They couldn’t care less about criminals on the streets with guns and have nothing to say about going after them, but they want to force every law-abiding gun purchaser to go through an FFL.
    They’re ONLY against legal guns and gun owners, and they lie about it. MAIG’s views are Bloomberg’s views, and Bloomberg’s views are a reflection of his leftist, elitist, New York City friends who disdain the NRA and sympathize with criminals.
    Billionaire Bloomberg’s exclusive, little club, for government officials only, bought and paid for by him, has become a plastic banana, astroturf joke, much like last-term Mayor Mike himself. How’s that presidential bid going Mayor Mike? Getting much traction across the U.S.? Any day now, right? Just a few more millions of dollars spent on TV commercials and you’ll have them eating right out of your hand, right? Either that, or his billions of dollars will never buy off America’s faith in freedom.

  14. TS says:

    MikeB: “The result would be such a decrease in gun violence that you opponents would be silenced…”

    So if they get something to work for the first time ever that will shut them up? Somehow I doubt that.

  15. mikeb302000 says:

    All right, I was exaggerating. If you guys suddenly cooperated with the common sense gun control laws that we propose and we saw a tremendous decrease in gun violence, we would naturally want stricter laws in order to lower even more the remaining gun violence. Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go.

    So, in order to ensure that the three-steps-down-the-line situation never happens, you resist even obvious things like background checks and licensing and registration.

    That’s why you’re in the wrong, not us. You see? If you cooperated and we reneged on our promise, which I admit we probably would, then we would be the wrong ones. But with your never-give-an-inch attitude, you are the wrong ones.

    And, due to this fear on your part, a reasonable one I agree, many people are dying each year who needn’t.

    The right thing for you would be to cooperate on the obvious and immediate things which wouldn’t interfere with your lifestyles much, and then take a hard stand. That way everybody wins.

    But you can’t do it, fearful, paranoid, self-centered, gun nuts that you are, you can’t do it.

    That’s why you’re wrong.

  16. Jacob says:

    Mike, you do realize that your remarks accomplish nothing more than providing comic relief for the guinnies reading them don’t you?

  17. Alpheus says:

    “That’s why you’re in the wrong, not us. You see? If you cooperated and we reneged on our promise, which I admit we probably would, then we would be the wrong ones. But with your never-give-an-inch attitude, you are the wrong ones.”

    MikeB, gun-grabbers *always* renege on their promises: they promise that, if guns are outlawed, then violence will go down, but far more often than not, it goes up. They promise that, if gun restrictions are removed, then there will be blood in the streets–yet, far more often than not, violence goes down.

    It is for this reason that we not only refuse to give inches, but we’re working hard to take them back!

    “And, due to this fear on your part, a reasonable one I agree, many people are dying each year who needn’t.”

    Oh, you mean, like in Chicago, New York City, and Washington, D.C.–places known for their restrictive gun laws, and also for being the murder capitals of the world?

    “The right thing for you would be to cooperate on the obvious and immediate things which wouldn’t interfere with your lifestyles much, and then take a hard stand. That way everybody wins.”

    We *are* cooperating! We’re working with legislatures and lawyers to confirm our rights, so that we could peaceably carry our pistols wherever we go, to be ready for criminals who will destroy innocent lives for their pleasure; and so that we could peaceably own our rifles, so that we could defend the country from tyrants at home and abroad that wish to enslave us. That’s why we take a hard stand for shall-issue carry permits and Constitutional Carry. These are the only common-sense gun laws that won’t interfere with our “sheepdog” lifestyles; and, as you can see, everybody wins!

    And that’s why we’re right, and why we’re winning to boot!

  18. Alpheus says:

    Oh, and for the record: the militia concept worked horribly in Switzerland, the last time it was put to the test. How quickly did Switzerland fall to Germany? Oh, my mistake, it stood firm all the way to the end of the war.

    Maybe we should be taking this “militia” idea more seriously, even in modern times!

  19. JayF says:

    What a wonderful post by mikeb. Where to begin?

    mikeb: “All right, I was exaggerating.”

    Tsk. It’s more like “lying.” This was such a standard lie by gun control advocates, and something so obviously untrue, that it adds to our reasons to distrust almost everything they say.

    mikeb: ” If you guys suddenly cooperated with the common sense gun control laws that we propose and we saw a tremendous decrease in gun violence, we would naturally want stricter laws in order to lower even more the remaining gun violence.”

    That’s half true. If we suddenly cooperated with the gun control laws that you propose and we saw NO decrease in gun violence at all, you would naturally want stricter laws anyway — you would claim that the first round of laws were not “strong” enough or had “loopholes.”

    mikeb: “Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go.”

    Now THAT is the truth — it would be so much more honest if other gun control advocates would stop trying to deny it.

    mikeb: “That’s why you’re in the wrong, not us. You see? If you cooperated and we reneged on our promise, which I admit we probably would, then we would be the wrong ones.”

    LOL — most gun control advocates are liars and would renege on their promises, and we know it, but WE are “in the wrong’? And if most gun control advocates conclude that “no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go,” might taking further action in that direction be much easier if gunowners were licensed and guns were registered?

    mikec: “And, due to this fear on your part, a reasonable one I agree, many people are dying each year who needn’t.”

    That assumes that the lesser types of gun control will accomplish that. They usually do not (many examples have been discussed) — THAT’S why the harsher types of gun control usually follow the lesser efforts. It’s not just gunowners saying this — Josh Sugarmann of the VPC has often said that registration of handguns would have little effect — which is why he favors bans.

    mikeb: “The right thing for you would be to cooperate on the obvious and immediate things which wouldn’t interfere with your lifestyles much, and then take a hard stand.”

    I have have offered such cooperation in return for reasonable compromise — gun control advocates refuse.

  20. hellferbreakfast says:

    What part of “Shall not be infringed” is not understood here?

  21. Bob S. says:

    Hey Sparky,

    You said:

    If you cooperated and we reneged on our promise, which I admit we probably would, then we would be the wrong ones.

    Well you’ve have already shown yourself to be a liar:

    Posted by mikeb302000 on 11.09.10 at 10:36 AM edit

    All right Bob. I’ll come clean. What do you want to know?

    You said you would talk about your previous ownership of firearms. You never have.

    You’ve proven yourself to be either a liar or a criminal with your own words

    After the military I owned guns both legally and illegally over a period of about 15 years.

    Why shouldn’t we treat you like any other criminal who promises if we just hand over the money/jewelry/guns we won’t get hurt?

  22. JayF says:

    mikeb: “If you cooperated and we reneged on our promise, which I admit we probably would, then we would be the wrong ones.”

    I cooperated, and supported the 1994 AWB. Gun control advocates promised to exempt popular hunting guns, and included a list as part of the law. The NRA said that gun control advocates would renege, but gun control advocates denied it and said that the NRA was lying. Other moderate gunowners like me supported the AWB and it passed.

    Do I need the remind you that gun control advocates later tried to revoke the list of exemption and ban popular hunting guns that were on the list? Like you say, mikeb: Gun control advocates reneged on their promise, and they are the wrong ones.

  23. mikeb302000 says:

    Everyone’s on topic except Bob S., again.

    Bob, that obsession you have with what I did 30 or 35 years ago is really sick. You know they have medicine for that.

    Jay, thanks for admitting that some of what I said was true.

    So, you wouldn’t support background checks on all transfers because, what, you’re convinced tha if you gave in that far you would be powerless to stop the cun control onslaught?

  24. Bob S. says:

    Sparky,

    Once again you show yourself to be completely clueless.

    I’m not talking – just – about what you did 35 years ago but the promise you made 7 months ago.

    You said — giving your word – that you would tell what happened 35 years ago.

    You lied.

    You haven’t done that.

    In the mean time, you still call for additional gun control laws.

    Anti-rights advocates like you claim that loosening restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms will result in more violence.

    You lie.

    Anti-rights advocates like you claim that you only want reasonable restrictions and you’ll be happy.

    You lie.

    These things aren’t 35 years ago. These are now.

    You lie.

    Why should we trust anything anti-rights advocate like you says?

    You have proven yourself to be a repeated and unremorseful liar.

  25. JayF says:

    mikeb: “So, you wouldn’t support background checks on all transfers”

    Regarding gun shows (the gun issue de jour) I differ with some other gunowner advocates.by favoring compromise.

    I would support mandatory support background checks on all sales at gun shows in return for a clear and credible commitment from most gun control groups & their most prominent legislative allies, to:

    1) not seek to replace NICS with a mandatory minimum waiting period (gun shows are often 1-weekend events)

    2) not continue attacks upon gun shows by seeking to restrict gun show venues, as has been attempted in sates that already closed the “gun show loophole” (such as CA)

    Perhaps federal gun show regulation could be peremptory — replacing all state and local gun show regulation.

    If such a law is successful (if gun control advocates do not renege) I would be will to talk about other transfers.

  26. mikeb302000 says:

    Bob, Why don’t you tell the guys the rest of what I said 7 months ago. I made that offer as a conditional promise. You refused the condition.

    That’s lying by omission, Bob. Doesn’t your Christian training have something to say about that?

    Anyway, your obsession and my teasing you is probably getting tedious for Sebastian, so how about for once in your life you let the other guy have the last word?

  27. Bob S. says:

    Sparky,

    I’m glad you mentioned that. Because that quote was the full of what you originally said.

    Then you reneged on your promise and tried to make it a compromise — that you would tell the truth IF I restored the link to your website.

    Proving that you are trolling for hits and a liar.

    All you had to do was follow the link back to my blog — and I encourage everyone to check it out- and see that you didn’t put conditions on your first statement.

    So even then you were showing your stripes; doing exactly what you claim you’ll do in the future regarding gun control.

    See Sparky, it isn’t me that is proving you are untrustworthy but your own words and actions.

  28. RuffRidr says:

    If nothing else, this thread is very entertaining. Liars gonna lie.

  29. JayF says:

    Ruff, it’s the truthful parts that I find most memorable. It’s not often that “gun control” advocates admit the following:

    mikeb: “Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go.”

    Denying that is such an important part of their dogma that I suspect that even mikeb might one day try to again claim that anti-gunowner advocates only want “reasonable” or ‘common sense” gun control. When that happens, let’s remind him of the self-admitted truth.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Bloomberg says Al Qaeda should decide US gun laws - [...] And he’s buying ads to say that. [...]
top