They don’t respect you Mike. They aren’t jumping on the Bloomberg train. They aren’t taking you seriously. You’re just a wallet to them. Ingrates! Every one of them! I think you should cut them off and make them fend for themselves. That’ll show ’em who’s boss. Save all that money for your campaign, and people that respect you.
I, for one, don’t see a downside to Bloomberg flushing his money down the toilet running for President. I do, however, see a pretty big upside (sorry about the paywall, but the headline pretty much says it all).
I’d say I don’t think Bloomberg has a prayer of taking the Dem nomination, but I would have said the same thing about Trump when he threw-in. Bloomberg has enough money to fund a Presidential campaign to the hilt while still keeping gun control groups at the same lifestyle they have become accustomed to.
I’d say his money is not to be underestimated, but it does look like enough key Dems are worried about this on Twitter. I think it hurt Creepy Joe. Probably helps Liz Warren and Bernie, since they will be the contrast. Bloomberg’s entry tells me that the money is worried about Biden’s ability to close the deal. They are right to be worried.
This seems to be going viral in the shooting community on social media. So much so that a reader from Colorado on Facebook sent me a message asking if it was my club. Then I noticed Illinois folks I know commenting. It is not my club. We were never this Fuddy at our Fuddy-Fudd Fuddiest, and we’ve gotten rid of a lot of the rules like this. This is a club up in Lycoming County, PA:
The rifle rule won’t even allow for high-power practice, and even bullseye rapid fire is 5 shots in 10 seconds. I suppose you could do your rapid fire string, and wait 50 seconds, and then shoot another one. But this does show this is not a club for actual shooters of shooting sports people are shooting today. Despite the fact that we’ve had our share of dumb rules, my club has always had the advantage of having membership that, for the most part, love the shooting sports. That’s not the case everywhere.
Yes, this club will likely die with the generation promulgating rules like this. The comments I see on social media are correct on that count. But I also think it’s incumbent on younger shooters to do what it takes to save places like this. Once we lose a place to shoot, we will never get it back. The club culture is also something unique that is worth saving. You won’t always succeed. There are clubs that are too far gone. But I found this advice seen on Facebook to be telling.
Fudds. I get it. But complaining will not help. Showing up at membership and board meetings will help. Showing up with a lot of guys helps more. Letter writing helps. Running for office helps. Being professional about it all helps. And if you “walk in the Fudd’s shoes” for a month you may discover the new policy may not be as stupid as you think. Sadly… 99% of rules exist only for the 1% that seems to mess things up for everybody. I would not put up with the new rules either and there may be an intelligent solution around it. Fudd’s do not care about complaining. They hear it all the time. You have to become a force.
That’s absolutely spot on, except for the part about “not be as stupid as you think.” I’d bet it’s about as stupid as you think. But that was clearly written by someone who has been very involved in club life. In most cases, club leadership is not as Fuddy as the caricature you’ve built in your brain suggests. Just in that position, you see a lot of idiocy, and it becomes temping to deal with that idiocy by rules. It’s the same temptation lawmakers face: when the only tool you have is a hammer…
The drive to do something, is huge. It’s not restricted to anti-gun people. There’s plenty of that attitude to go around.
Bitter has been watching coverage of this possibly foiled mass shooting from her old neck of the woods. Once the local news mentioned the shooter was confronted by an armed citizen, the Facebook Live feed was cut. I’m not kidding I heard that and shouted out to Bitter, “Kill the story! Kill the story! Priority one! The rubes must not know!” Not a minute later, Facebook cut the feed.
It’s looking like a domestic. So possibly the armed intervention wouldn’t have mattered. The local news is covering the armed intervener, but I can promise you this will not make any national news.
… Gun control advocates: “We have to pass more gun control, like they have in California, to prevent the kind of tragedy that happened in California.”
The media will run this up and down and sideways, unless it interferes with a narrative, in which case it will quickly disappear. Their coverage, their endless obsession with the shooter, will plant the seed in the brain of the next unhinged loser, and the cycle will continue. I’m sure, as we speak, the media are looking for narratives: did he buy the gun at a gun show in Arizona? God help us if he did. California has all the gun laws the antis could dream of, but that will go unmentioned. There will always be a pretext for needing more of the cake.
Look out, The Inquirer is op-eding! Seriously, this displays so much ignorance about guns and ammunition, it’s astounding. This is the kind of stuff I’d expect children to come up with. But this was vomited onto paper by an adult and put up as an op-ed by presumably adult editors:
Today, one can walk into a gun shop and purchase, for instance, a .22, .38, or .44-caliber handgun. Most firearms are built to accommodate one size round only. So here’s what would happen if the manufacture of today’s standard-size rounds were outlawed, and .23, .39 and .46-caliber rounds took their place: Eventually, gun owners would run out of the old ammo, and their weapons would become paperweights.
Oh my God. Seriously? I don’t even know where to begin. But I’ll hit a few points:
For most firearms, this would be a barrel change, and that’s about it. Criminals will have no trouble obtaining new barrels for old guns.
Ammunition can be manufactured in basements. At this point the only parts I order out for are primers and powder. I know someone who casts and polycoats bullets in his basement, with a machine that makes thousands at a time. This very very stupid proposal by a very very ignorant person isn’t going to change that. I have enough brass to keep shooting for a decade or more. And for new brass? Presumably the police and military aren’t going to be made to retool, so there will still be plenty, and you can’t regulate it. It would be more pointless than regulating pot, which at least smells bad.
Lastly, does it matter if someone gets shot with a .22 or a .23? Seriously. Grow up. Even after this law is passed, what have you accomplished? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Mexico has restrictions on ammunition similar to what this guy proposes, and Mexican cartels have no trouble obtaining restricted firearms and restricted ammunition, and a .38 Super will kill just as readily as a 9mm.
The Supreme Court has denied cert in the Remington case. At issue is whether Remington violated Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. From the Connecticut Supreme Court ruling that was on appeal to SCOTUS:
Specifically, if the defendants did indeed seek to expand the market for their assault weapons through advertising campaigns that encouraged consumers to use the weapons not for legal purposes such as self-defense, hunting, collecting, or target practice, but to launch offensive assaults against their perceived enemies, then we are aware of nothing in the text or legislative history of PLCAA to indicate that Congress intended to shield the defendants from liability for the tragedy that resulted.
The end result will likely be that states pass laws that eliminate or frustrate the firearms manufacturers ability to market. Much like happened with tobacco. Clearly now there’s significant legal hazard in marketing firearms.
UPDATE: Dave Hardy, who actually practices appellate law, has a take on this as well. He seems to suggest the plaintiffs still have quite an uphill climb. But discovery will now proceed.
This is rather long, but worth the read. The summary:
The historian of American statecraft and spycraft and conservative political philosopher Angelo Codevilla talks about the ruling elite, Jonathan Pollard, and the rise of the techno-surveillance state—and the consequent demise of the American Empire
Gun control groups massively outspent Second Amendment organizations in the Virginia elections that brought Democrats control of the state legislature, dropping at least $2.5 million into more than a dozen races in suburban swing districts. Yet we hear all the time about the NRA’s spending, and how politicians who support the Second Amendment are really just “in the pocket of the gun lobby.” Why shouldn’t the same be said of politicians who rake in even more cash from anti-gun groups?
Because it’s OK when they do it. I’ve said before, they aren’t against money in politics. They are against your money in politics. The issue for Bloomberg was that in his early efforts, it became apparent Virginia would only be bought at a higher cost. All Bloomberg had to do was boost spending and wait for the demographics of Northern Virginia to tip the state.
What demographics, you might add? For 40% of people in Fairfax County, English is not their first language. It has been flooded by new immigrants. Most of those immigrants are going to be working in service jobs for federal workers and government contractors who are the main source of income for the areas. Other than the defense industry, those demos aren’t exactly rich farming grounds for Republicans. And the Dems have historically owned immigrant communities. These aren’t favorable demographics for gun rights. Sorry, but that’s just the truth.
The bluing of the Philadelphia suburbs is another beast. One factor is the ring counties are also dealing with out-migration from cities where Dems routinely get 80% of the vote or more. The other is the shifting political coalition plays against the GOP here.
Blue collar workers are traditionally the democratic voters in the ring counties. Educated upper middle class households used to form the GOP’s core base around here, and that has shifted to being the core Dem base. That trend started with Bill Clinton. While the blue collar vote is changing, it’s not changing fast enough to offset losses. Upper middle class voters are leaving the GOP faster than blue collar workers are coming over to it. The GOP leadership that have held power here, really since the Civil War, have also not adapted well; they are still partying like it’s 1985 and running candidates that appeal to their old base. Fitzpatrick held on because the Dems ran an awful candidate against him. That luck likely won’t hold.
“But Western PA has almost all gone red!” That’s great, but Western PA is also depopulating. Pennsylvania’s demographics haven’t changed even a fraction of what Virginia’s has. But gun owners are going to have to get their acts together to fight off what’s coming, because the fact is when elites decide they prefer a certain policy, say, gun control, they will usually get their way eventually. I don’t for a minute believe gun rights is a lost cause, but we can’t keep doing what we’ve been doing and expect to keep winning.
