Bloomberg is going to be a huge threat when he's done being mayor of NY

He is the proxy of the British Imperialist who wants to disarm their subjects so to monopolize their hegemony in the past, present and future.

Bloomberg is simply buying laws. He dumps millions into every efort. I can only wonder how much he has spent on campaign donations to keep his friends in office.

Sent from my C5120 using Tapatalk 2

And might I ad that a gun is an object. It can be neither legal nor illegal. It is possession and/or transfer of that object that is illegal.

Click to expand...

Not true.

Meth is an illegal object.

Possessing or using it gets that person in trouble and the meth is destroyed.

THAT is what they want to do to guns.

Fortunately, the 2A protects guns and not meth

Bloomberg is pushy, rich and obnoxious .
I rate him right up with Fred Phelps on my list of people (Insert non-The High Road comment here...)

This is a man who forced through a change in how many terms a Mayor of New York City can serve.

He is always going to be a threat. Mikey and his paid bloombots will be causing trouble on a continuing basis.

Mikey has a GOD complex and resources. If he wasn't rich, he would just be a nut.

Not true.

Meth is an illegal object.

Possessing or using it gets that person in trouble and the meth is destroyed.

Click to expand...

No. Meth is a controlled substance. Looking to CT General Statutes §21a-277 (my home state, but I'm sure other states have similar wording):

Any person who manufactures, distributes, sells, prescribes, dispenses, compounds, transports with the intent to sell or dispense, possesses with the intent to sell or dispense, offers, gives or administers to another person any controlled substance...

Click to expand...

It's those actions that are illegal. The object itself is a "controlled substance," which means it is subject to those restrictions. And might I add, those are the restrictions that I'm sure the likes of Bloomberg and Feinstein would like to eventually see applied to all firearms. Black powder guns will be the last to go, but rest assured, they want those too.

^^^ He's no different than some other nut job with a complex, except he has the money to act out his idiocracy.

Didn't Bloomberg's money buy money buy him that recent election in Illinois?

Click to expand...

Maybe yes, and maybe no. He didn't have to spend a dime because the district in question was in the Chicago inter-city. The outcome was never in doubt.

In states where firearm ownership is wide spread I don't think his money will have much impact. Looking at gun and ammunition sales it's obvious that people are not about to vote against their own gun rights. The largest impact will be in urban areas where voters are on his side already. If he was really effective Sen. Reed wouldn't have found that only 30 to 40 votes out of 100 in the Senate were ready to back a new AWB and outlaw large capacity magazines.

Who elected him? I will tell you.

So I am at my grand daughters little league practice and talking to a young man who admired my cane, I make them to give away to vets. Seems this young man was injured in the Stan by and IED. Cool I get one from the truck for him. We talk and share experiences from different wars-- WHEN THE TEAM MOTHER, comes around collecting money for whatever---
Guys

- She was a bad imitation of Camila Soprano, hair, nails, accent the whole deal. We tease her about her accent and find out she is from Queens and down here for year with her contractor husband. I welcome her to the free world and she launches into a big rant about how she hates it here and cant wait to go back to civilization.

"Seriously" I taunt her, "you like bloomietown"

So she launches into a rant about how he cares and is doing good.

Me, I just said OK and walked away. Don't think I made a friend.

That is who voted for him.

So why not do what the libs do? Play his money against him.

Rich evil white dude should not influence our elections. We can play that to the hilt.

Are his children rabidly anti-gun like him? They stand to inherit a MASSIVE amount of money when he kicks the bucket.

I really hope we don't get another generation of bloomberg family control of NYC...

Bloomberg is very dangerous. He has a lot of money, and is power hungry. He will do whatever it takes to accomplish his goals...

Click to expand...

Can't argue with that, IMO, he is a unhappy little man who wishes to impose
his beliefs on others, sad folks really but dangerous.

OilyPablo said:

So why not do what the libs do? Play his money against him.

Rich evil white dude should not influence our elections. We can play that to the hilt.

Click to expand...

Rich white dude who was also a draft dodger. At least I sure don't see any Service time on his public CV...
He and his ilk are going to be a major problem for what remains of America...

There are a lot of gun owners in this country, and if we're in the contest for the long haul, we will beat these attacks back. Say what you will about the NRA, but they are our loudest, best known voice. They play a key role in representing our interests and fighting paranoia with facts.

Bloomberg disturbs me for several reasons. The chief one is that he believes he knows exactly what everyone needs and is willing to impose it. Left wing or right wing, I don't like people who force their views on others.

His approach to problems may appeal to people looking for high profile, quick fix. Yet they don't really change things at a causal level. His large soda ban or desire to hide tobacco products underscore the fact that he doesn't understand any of problems he is trying to fix, let alone that of gun violence. He is not invincible.

I would like to know where did Bloomberg get all his wealth from? I doubt seriously that it was legitimate business deals!

I think he put it all on 666 like Soros.

I suspect he'll continue buying elections for anti-gun candidates, like he did in Chicago recently.

Yes, folks like Mr. Bloomberg are a problem - but not as great as you think, money and all.... In his case he had a ready made constituency in New York. I can think of a few other places where his ideas might have found fertile ground (here's a hint -they're all in states where their fiscal policies have them in deep, deep money trouble....). Outside of those places his money will be a problem but most, if they know where the money came from, will be pretty hard to influence, period.

Yes, we need to keep a close eye on his activities and oppose them at every turn (instead of going up against him directly I'd simply advise that our side speak up clearly about "New York influence" or "New York style politics". Most outside the big apple will not think that's the way to go. I'd consider constant vigilance and opposition at every turn... a form of PEST CONTROL, nothing more...

Maybe we need a federal law stating that no one man can donate more than $100,000 to any election, campaign, or item up for a public vote. This would limit the influence in the same manner that each has only one vote. Not perfect, but not a bad start.

Mayor Soda-Pop scares me not.

Bloomberg doesn't scare me at all... the PEOPLE however, they scare me. I was visiting family in NY last week and watching NY1, a 24-hour news channel - they were asking NYers about the sugary drink ban (that was going to fail).. they supported it without having ANY idea it affected them as well... jaws were dropping left and right when they were told sugary drinks also meant their COFFEE... those blanks looks scared me. It told me all I needed to know, they let the media make up their minds for them. A talking head says "do this" and they do it, without even thinking. They supported it blindly.

I'm afraid the same might go for these "anti-gun" efforts. Bloomberg pays a talking head to say "guns are bad, most people hate guns" and the average citizen will think "wow, guns are bad and I should hate them" - and that would be one more vote his money bought, as sickening as it sounds.

In actuarial/demographic terms, Bloomberg is near enough to shuffiling off this mortal coil that he probably isn't a threat in more than the short to medium term. If he's still bankrolling anti-gun activism ten years from now I'll be surprised. Of course, a lot of harm can be done in ten years.