search
top

Bloomberg on Colorado

He thinks he won:

“What do you mean we lost? I’m sorry for those two people. But we won in Colorado. On to the next state.”

No wonder Hick is treating him like he’s got cooties. I think the only gun control leader who thinks Colorado was a win is Mike Bloomberg. If you can’t protect people who take hard votes, your ideas aren’t going to find much traction.

21 Responses to “Bloomberg on Colorado”

  1. Hank Archer says:

    Well, he did win, didn’t he? Those laws will never be repealed.

    • Patrick H says:

      That has yet to be seen. Never say never. I never thought states would actually pass constitutional carry laws, and yet we now have 4 ones that have passed it (VT was a court case).

    • Until those laws are repealed, you are correct.

      Bloomberg simply looks at those two as nothing more than cannon fodder.

    • SPQR says:

      We are going to get them repealed. We are still moving on rolling them back.

      And with some more hardwork we’ll at least replace “Pyrrhic victory” with “Bloomberg victory”.

  2. mikee says:

    It has only been a Pyrrhic Victory for the two recalled legislators. It needs to be made a Pyrrhic Victory for the legislation itself before too much longer, or Bloomie will indeed have won.

  3. Sertorius says:

    Bloomberg is right.

    Now, I think what happened in CO will be very effective in other states in discouraging anti-gun votes. But what happened in CO is a done deal. It would take a historic sea change in CO politics to put enough R’s in office to actually repeal the bills.

    • Jack says:

      How bad is it in the lower house?

      Becuase, correct me if I’m wrong, the State Senate has the D’s up by 1. So that if one seat changes hands it flips control.

      There’s also the govenor to worry about.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      2014 elections… Udall is up. Ken Buck (a DA) is running against him. It will be interesting. The gun issue should keep folks swarming to the polls.

      • jerry says:

        Buck ran in 2010, and could not win in a Republican wave election. He came close, but no dice.

        • HappyWarrior6 says:

          Udall isn’t too bad, but my primary interest in that race is pro-gun turnout.

  4. Hank Archer says:

    Bloomberg’s statement is like a General’s, “We lost more troops than we’d hoped, but we took the hill and we will hold it.”

  5. Chas says:

    Bloomberg will not find “on to the next state” to be so easy, after what just happened in the last state. He likes to run roughshod over people, even those who helped him, but even people on his side noticed what happened to those who supported him, and they will be less eager to side with him in the future.

  6. Shawn says:

    He won in the sense he got gun control passed in what some would consider a conservative state. He lost two anti-freedom senators but that’s just collateral damage. He could of cost the dems the entire Colorado state senate but to him it would still be a victory. The laws will not be repealed anytime soon and the courts will never overturn it. Most judges contempt of the second amendment is so glaring that they WANT the government to start killing gun owners by the millions to force total and complete confiscation and citizen disarmament.

    After all when this happens we do nothing but lose ground. This is a fight they don’t mind having to fight for another century or two as they hope there goals get achieved.

    • Sebastian says:

      He won in the sense he got gun control passed in what some would consider a conservative state. He lost two anti-freedom senators but that’s just collateral damage. He could of cost the dems the entire Colorado state senate but to him it would still be a victory.

      I think so too, but politicians generally don’t like their seats being regarded as collateral damage. That’s not going to go over well, and Bloomberg is going to be harder pressed the next time he asks someone to charge the proverbial machine gun nest.

      • Shawn says:

        Bloomberg doesn’t give a crap about how many seats he costs so long as gun control gets passed. To him losing votes and losing seats the dems losing power is still collateral damage. And to these politicians don’t in the end care due to the false promise of ‘bloombergs billions’ keeping them safe. A few months ago people went all for it since he could pretty much have any politician he wanted to win by using his personal fortune to simply buy the election for them. Now that isn’t appearing to be the case as much but these democrats hate liberty and freedom as much as him and they still cling onto the hope of ‘bloombergs billions’.

        • TS says:

          I think he cares in the sense that it’s got to hurt his agenda when he moves onto the next state.

          • Jack says:

            That he’s moving onto the next state concedes a lack of forward momentum.

            Which is also a signal to those “foot troops” who went out and voted: “I got my law, I don’t need you anymore.”

            It’s like a General sending out a unit to blow up a bridge and then leaving them there to be encircled and nibbled away instead of spending the fuel to recover them.

      • **I think so too, but politicians generally don’t like their seats being regarded as collateral damage. That’s not going to go over well, and Bloomberg is going to be harder pressed the next time he asks someone to charge the proverbial machine gun nest.**

        I don’t know, depends on how much of the kool-aid they drank. To some, dying on the alter of falsehoods is their ultimate dream.

  7. Archer says:

    Y’know, anti-freedom types continually play “sportsmen” vs. other gun owners by targeting semi-auto handguns and MSRs/EBRs/etc and saying they’ll leave shotguns and bolt-action rifles alone. Many “sportsmen” blindly support it – and we call the “Fudds” out for undermining everyone else’s rights when they’ve already “got theirs.”

    That mentality is EXACTLY what Bloomberg is demonstrating here. He “supported” gun control supporters, but now that he’s “got his,” he’s giving a big one-finger salute to the “collateral damage.”

    I’m hoping (against hope) that between this show in Colorado and AB 711 in California (wherein lead ammo is banned for hunting by 2019), two things will happen:
    a) Wishy-washy politicians will see the anti-gun “leadership’s” true colors – in that they don’t give a rip who gets hurt as long as their agenda becomes law; and,
    b) The “sportsmen” (aka “Fudds”) will realize – finally – that we really are all in this together; just because shotguns and bolt-actions are “safe” now doesn’t mean they will continue to be after semi-autos are banned. That whole “sporting purpose” thing didn’t save lead (read: “affordable”) buckshot/slugs, did it?

    • Zermoid says:

      Well, I am a Sportsman, but I also like my WW2 weapons, I carry a auto pistol, and would like to get an AR someday.
      I really don’t see how people can have the ‘as long as you leave my shotgun and hunting rifle alone’ mentality.

top