Bloomberg proposes denying miniorities of their 2nd Amendment rights to save them

[AirForceShooter]

Just look at D.C.
A black government is fighting tooth and nail to keep guns out of the hands of it's black citizens. And the NAACP is silent

AFS

 

[barnbwt]

First, let's not act like Bloomberg is any stranger to the various types of criminal profiling out there. Second, let's not pretend the practices aren't effective (right vs. wrong is where the debate is).

So, essentially, Bloomer is conceding the fact that his pet civil rights abuses haven't worked because they haven't been focused on those most associated with the societal ill. Honestly? That's a good thing; it implies he would be less hostile toward proposals from our side that rescind his admittedly ineffective tactics against the vast swath of the population that is needlessly effected by the policies (I'm sure the 'needlessly effected' part is something he'd deny, but if he truly realizes the pointless nature of these tactics, he won't fight hard for them, either)

So, he'd possibly be comfortable with doing away with blanket policy so long as 'something is still done for the children,' albeit on a more focused scale. It would seem AWBs, safe storage laws, and possibly even BGC's would fall squarely in this area of "needlessly broad and of limited effectiveness/deterrent."

At that point, we'd basically be back in the good 'ol Jim Crow days, wherein gun laws were only enforced in minority/poor ghettos (and by extension, almost universally against the minority/poor persons at large). Not exactly a glorious development, but --from a strictly Machiavellian/tactical point of view-- you end up with fewer law abiding Americans subject to terrible laws and civil rights violations (keep in mind; those in ghettos are already infringed with the present state of affairs). You could call it a sort of improvement, beating back the progress gun control has made from the Jim Crow days to now ensnare all Americans, rather than those who happen to be unfavored.

From that vantage, with increased numbers on our side (owing to reduced gun control in outlying areas where the money/low crime resides) it would be much easier to then roll back whatever gun control schemes are enforced against serfs in the feudal domains. For this simple logical progression alone, I don't think Bloomberg actually means what he actually said. He would probably clarify it as all further infringements needing to be structured so as to disproportionately affect* those most likely to commit/be victims of crime**.

I think it would be interesting to engage Mr. Bloomberg from his own perspective; "of course we should structure our preventative crime laws*** to have the most impact and implications for those committing the bulk of the problem, which is why we should rethink existing schemes like 'universal' background checks and blanket prohibitions on equipment." His argument has a very straight forward corollary, but it would be entertaining to see him deny it (and thus refute his own arguments on targeted enforcement/statute)

*Somehow I doubt such language would survive 14th amendment scrutiny, but I wouldn't put it past lawmakers to try (though I'm sure they'd use all sorts of Orwellian doublespeak to get around it)
**Underpinning the anti/statist belief system is the notion that criminality is a "two to tango" situation where the presence of both victims and predators are the problem, so both must always be addressed simultaneously
*** <shudder>

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The root of his statement is nothing that has not been said here. Address the big outlier of violence in this country if you really want to see results.

He is still focused on the guns, not on the violence and the causes of it. Because of that no improvement will come.

What I highlighted in bold is the whole idea. Bloomberg and his ilk need the issue to disarm us. So far, though, it hasn't worked all that well since the people as a whole are becoming wiser.

Woody

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

First, let's not act like Bloomberg is any stranger to the various types of criminal profiling out there. Second, let's not pretend the practices aren't effective (right vs. wrong is where the debate is).

So, essentially, Bloomer is conceding the fact that his pet civil rights abuses haven't worked because they haven't been focused on those most associated with the societal ill. Honestly? That's a good thing; it implies he would be less hostile toward proposals from our side that rescind his admittedly ineffective tactics against the vast swath of the population that is needlessly effected by the policies (I'm sure the 'needlessly effected' part is something he'd deny, but if he truly realizes the pointless nature of these tactics, he won't fight hard for them, either)

So, he'd possibly be comfortable with doing away with blanket policy so long as 'something is still done for the children,' albeit on a more focused scale. It would seem AWBs, safe storage laws, and possibly even BGC's would fall squarely in this area of "needlessly broad and of limited effectiveness/deterrent."

At that point, we'd basically be back in the good 'ol Jim Crow days, wherein gun laws were only enforced in minority/poor ghettos (and by extension, almost universally against the minority/poor persons at large). Not exactly a glorious development, but --from a strictly Machiavellian/tactical point of view-- you end up with fewer law abiding Americans subject to terrible laws and civil rights violations (keep in mind; those in ghettos are already infringed with the present state of affairs). You could call it a sort of improvement, beating back the progress gun control has made from the Jim Crow days to now ensnare all Americans, rather than those who happen to be unfavored.

From that vantage, with increased numbers on our side (owing to reduced gun control in outlying areas where the money/low crime resides) it would be much easier to then roll back whatever gun control schemes are enforced against serfs in the feudal domains. For this simple logical progression alone, I don't think Bloomberg actually means what he actually said. He would probably clarify it as all further infringements needing to be structured so as to disproportionately affect* those most likely to commit/be victims of crime**.

I think it would be interesting to engage Mr. Bloomberg from his own perspective; "of course we should structure our preventative crime laws*** to have the most impact and implications for those committing the bulk of the problem, which is why we should rethink existing schemes like 'universal' background checks and blanket prohibitions on equipment." His argument has a very straight forward corollary, but it would be entertaining to see him deny it (and thus refute his own arguments on targeted enforcement/statute)

*Somehow I doubt such language would survive 14th amendment scrutiny, but I wouldn't put it past lawmakers to try (though I'm sure they'd use all sorts of Orwellian doublespeak to get around it)
**Underpinning the anti/statist belief system is the notion that criminality is a "two to tango" situation where the presence of both victims and predators are the problem, so both must always be addressed simultaneously
*** <shudder>

lol, you have a very long way of saying something very simple. So in essence you are saying that the flip side of this Bloomberg coin is to do away with things like universal background checks for white folks living in the suburbs because of the much lower crime rates. As Bloomberg's reasoning for taking away the 2nd Amendment rights of minorities in the inner cities IS because of the much higher crime rate (hey, isn't this what DC does already) then it logically follows that you should then have carte blanche 2nd Amendment rights where the crime rate is low.

Yah, liberals don't think that way. They innact draconian laws to everyone because they refuse to accept the idea of personal responsibility and instead blame everything on the ills of a free society...

 

[george burns]

I think he exhibits mental problems, and has for some time. I believe he has lost all credibility and is reduced himself to a one word description, As in you have been Bloomberged. He no longer gets air time and is just running around like a crazy, trying to invoke his will on all people, much like a small German man did a long time ago.
I also think he won't be around much longer, something will slow him down, like a stroke, as people like him usually make themselves sick when things don't go their way, and everyone has his number now, so it has to be making him nuts.

 

[481]

I don't think that anyone really pays that much attention to Bloomberg anymore -well, except for the far left and they are already a 'known quantity' as far as their position on the 2A.

 

[OilyPablo]

All sorts of people listened to his money in WA state!

Actually he says these things precisely because he thinks he is winning.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

...

Actually he says these things precisely because he thinks he is winning.

Sounds like Obama as well.

There is nothing more dangerous than eristic politicians when it comes to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Damn fools don't seem to realize they are trashing their own right to self defense and their own right to fend off tyranny. While they disarm us, they make it possible for those more despicable than themselves to force us all into servitude.

United we stand, Bloomberged, we fall. Him too.

Woody

 

[Bezoar]

isnt bloomberg the one who used to run an illegal gun purchase program to shut down gunstores so he could make sure that the criminals in inner cities couldnt get guns?

 

[Walkalong]

I don't think that anyone really pays that much attention to Bloomberg anymore

They sure pay attention to the money he throws around aimed at taking guns away.

 

[P5 Guy]

Yeah, Bezoar, that's the guy.

 

[friscolatchi]

Bloomburg is an oligarch who uses his billions politically. He is worth over 50 billion dollars and is on the list of 80 billionaires who have more money than 1/2 of the worlds population. So we can see the power and influence that he can wield. Just because he lost a few battles does not mean that he doesn't have plan b, c, d, ad infinitum. He can afford to be patient. Anyone recollect Washington State? Referendum? 50 billion is 50 thousand million dollars.....

 

[d2wing]

Well it is wrong but does make sense for a liberal to think that way. That all men are equal is a Christian concept. The liberal ideology is Darwinism and that some men are more evolved. This is the premise of planned parenthood, Communism and progressivism in general. It is also an underlining belief that elites need to rule the masses as in Stalin, Hitler who was a socialist, the KKK and all others that believe in classes like Monarchies. Liberalism was in part a Christian idea but it has been taken over progressive socialists so a liberal can believe either way but is basically fooled by the elite anyway.

After reading the original article, the Washington paper distorted what he said. Much of what he said made sense. But still he is a tyrant.

 

[we are not amused]

Well it is wrong but does make sense for a liberal to think that way. That all men are equal is a Christian concept. The liberal ideology is Darwinism and that some men are more evolved. This is the premise of planned parenthood, Communism and progressivism in general. It is also an underlining belief that elites need to rule the masses as in Stalin, Hitler who was a socialist, the KKK and all others that believe in classes like Monarchies. Liberalism was in part a Christian idea but it has been taken over progressive socialists so a liberal can believe either way but is basically fooled by the elite anyway.

That is basically the Modern Progressive view. Dividing the people into classes, in which the privileged few will rule the rest. All for their own good of course. Remember, "It's all for the children!"

 

[joem1945]

I'm amazed that the black folks vote Democrat time and time again. They don't seem to realize that many dems are racists like bloombutt. The dems will keep the black folk on the social plantation through food stamps and all the other gov give away programs.

 

[steelerdude99]

... They don't seem to realize that many dems are racists like bloombutt. ...

Just for reference, Mike Bloomberg was a Democrat, then switched to Republican and then independent.

chuck

 

[HexHead]

Just for reference, Mike Bloomberg was a Democrat, then switched to Republican and then independent.

chuck

He only became a Republican because it was easier for him to win the primary for mayor than running in the more crowded Dem primary.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Just for reference, Mike Bloomberg was a Democrat, then switched to Republican and then independent.

chuck

Yep. In otherwords, whichever way the political winds were blowing in order for him to achieve his own goals.

He switched to Republican because that was the only way he could run for mayor of NYC because Mark Green had the Democratic nomination. He went Independent afterwards, likely because he could then press his own political agenda much easier while availing himself of voting factions from both the big parties...and harming either party as he sees fit, as well.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Bloomberg's political wanderings are a good reminder that just because (R) is after someone's name doesn't mean they're a friend of the 2A or US Constitution in general, though. Maybe a better bet than most Democrats, but still need to look at the individual record, not the party affiliation. (Worth remembering that Reagan, as president and governor of CA, presided over some pretty odious gun control events, as an example.)

 

[barnbwt]

...although the warnings not to trust anything having to do with NY or NJ remain valid...

TCB

 

[orionengnr]

On education, Bloomberg said the U.S. should deliver the kind of schooling that will help people become self-sustainable and increase a sense of dignity. If a person has the option of going to Harvard or becoming a plumber, he said he would suggest thinking about the plumbing career.

“The Harvard graduate on average will never catch up to a plumber,” Bloomberg said. “Partially because the first four years — instead of spending $60,000, you make $60,000.”
Yeah... a quick google search will show you that the Harvard website shows that the cost is more like $60k per year.Over four years, that is a quarter of a million dollars.
https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works/cost-attendance

Of course, to a multi-billionaire...that is a rounding error.

 

[tacxted]

I don't hate him cause he's rich, I hate him cause he is a fanatical 2A controler who drools at the news report of murders; as his next spring board for 2A erosion and infringement "commonsense lawmaking" against lawful Americans.

He needs to dry up and turn to dust already.