Bloomberg's gun control group spends $15M on campaigns in eight swing states

Status
Not open for further replies.
Political rhetoric..did you get all sweaty when trump said' 'first take the guns then worry about due process'?? Or when trump supported
-21 year old minimum age
RFL
UBC??
Sounds like some one votes the man not the ideology behind the party.
My 'attitude' is actually a question..give an estimate as to the time, money and manpower to confiscate 400 million firearms w/o any Federal registry. Did Austia, GB, or Canada have a Euro/Canadian version of the 2nd amendment?
The 2nd are words on a parchment. With few exceptions the states have no 2nd. Confiscation, why bother, Out law guns, why bother, the blue states will simply pass laws rendering guns useless. Pass laws prohibiting gun sales, Ammo sales, transporting, tax them, laws against discharging them, crap man I’m a dumb lay person and I can think of a dozen ways to turn guns into useless pieces of plastic wood and metal. A Bull with no balls is still a bull, good only for meat.
 
Sounds like some one votes the man not the ideology behind the party.

The 2nd are words on a parchment. With few exceptions the states have no 2nd. Confiscation, why bother, Out law guns, why bother, the blue states will simply pass laws rendering guns useless. Pass laws prohibiting gun sales, Ammo sales, transporting, tax them, laws against discharging them, crap man I’m a dumb lay person and I can think of a dozen ways to turn guns into useless pieces of plastic wood and metal. A Bull with no balls is still a bull, good only for meat.
So you agree, Biden's not gong to 'take your guns and repeal the 2A'??
Party ideology and the 2 candidates? That's an interesting topic for sure.

These words that get thrown around..a t___ on that linoleum floor to see if it spins or splats...it gets the 'base' of each fired up but the 'bases' aren't the largest voting block. The unaligned middle is...
 
I agree only with my post early on concerning that candidate, he will do as he’s told to by the DNC and the house. As POTUS he may as well be the Queen of England. It’s not the president we need worry about it’s the ruling party. Voting for the man is, IMO a wasted vote. Vote the strength behind the man. In this country that’s the party.
 
I agree only with my post early on concerning that candidate, he will do as he’s told to by the DNC and the house. As POTUS he may as well be the Queen of England. It’s not the president we need worry about it’s the ruling party. Voting for the man is, IMO a wasted vote. Vote the strength behind the man. In this country that’s the party.
Like I said, party ideology and at least one candidate would be an interesting discussion..Each party's goals overlap a lot. Security, strong participative economy, strong social support for those less fortunate. Viable health care, a effective and reasonable immigration policy, etc..how to get there varies 'a lot'...
 
https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-sh...lag-law-led-massive-gun-confiscation-numbers/

The law, supported by legislators of both parties , has been applied more than 3,500 times since, with the pace accelerating during the last half of 2019. Even so, an Associated Press analysis of the law showed its use is inconsistent, with some counties and cities using it rarely and others not at all.

Advocates of Florida’s red flag measure say before it existed, it was often difficult to remove firearms from those making threats or suffering severe mental breakdowns. Investigators did not act on reports that the Parkland shooter was threatening to carry out a school massacre. But even if they had, it is likely he would have been allowed to keep his guns because he had no felony convictions or involuntary, long-term mental commitments, they say.

Who said firearms can't be confiscated in the U.S.A.?
 
laws prohibiting gun sales, Ammo sales, transporting, tax them, laws against discharging them,
Outright gun bans and confiscation would likely not be the primary goal. It would be much simpler and cheaper to tax everything firearm related to the extent it's unaffordable for the vast majority of gun owners. Connect that to UBC's, red flag laws, mag capacity limits, etc...and the guns will in fact be mostly useless. Does anyone in their right mind think the groups dumping millions upon millions of dollars into the anti-gun cause believe those donors don't expect a return on their investment?

It's happened in local and state levels across the country, and those groups are picking all the low hanging fruit they can. After they've got all they can, the next step will be cutting down the tree. Think they won't at least try?
 
Nickolaus Cruz and Parkland? Locally we had two high school students threatening to out do Kleibold and Harris in body count by studing the mistakes they did at Columbine. They were arrested and tried and confessed to everything. No need to take their guns. They were physically separated (in jail) from their guns. MOM: Crime involves a person with criminal Motive, who exploits Opportunities, and utilizes Means. Do we stop child porn by attacking everyone who owns the same means, a video camera, or do we target the people who do the crime and try to devise security methods to deny opportunity to act to bad actors known or unknown?

Taking guns from bad actors or persons who have expressed motive and intent to do harm is not "confiscation" in my use of the term. I have followed gun control advocacy since 1959 starting with Carl Bakal "This Very Day A Gun May Kill You". They have preached banning guns to every one who is not an agent of the government. That is confiscation in my dictionary.
 
Right about now, with the political climate, I really don't see anything advocating gun control as a good idea, especially for a political platform. People who never dreamed of owning a gun are buying guns and I hear CCW classes in my area (SE Cleveland, Ohio suburbs) are booked till September. Advocating gun control just doesn't seem like a real good idea on a political platform.

Ron
 
Hardly. I was a 23-year-old law student in 1968, and I knew people that didn't register their MGs during the amnesty precisely because they didn't trust the government. Boy, did they turn out to be the big losers!

The fact is, federal gun registration in this country has never led to confiscation. Draw your own conclusions[/b].

Sincerely, this isn't always the problem. Local govt. can be as insidious. In the 1960s, in New York City, certain semiautos were registered. The pro-gun side argued against adopting the law, saying it would lead toconfiscation. The NYC govt. promised that would never happen, and got the law passed.

Then, under Mayor Dinkins thirty years later, those guns were banned, and those lists from three decades previous were used to track down noncompliance. This lead to several incidents were the original gun owning residents had moved and innocent non gun owning families had NYPD ESU (SWAT) units violently bust into their homes yelling "WHERE ARE THE GUNS!!??!!??"

Also, in California passed the Roberti-Roos law a few decades ago, registering certain semiautos, and those who complied later received notices that they may no longer keep them.

Eric Swalwell promised gun confiscation. Thankfully he's toast. Biden has also promised confiscation ~~ "bingo! If you have an AR or ak47, we are coming for them!" ~~ rhetoric or promise? Can we pray he forgets this???

Don't kid yourself. CONFISCATIONS HAVE HAPPENED!!!!!!!!!![/U]
 
Last edited:
Whether a new justice will cause them to take up cases, they rejected is an unknown give the culture of the court re: precedents.

We are back to whether the RKBA is enough to put up with other issues. If you like the position on those, yes. If you think the others are as great a challenge to the the USA, you say No.
 
I got a kick of of Mayor Lightfoot making the statement that "Chicago needs more Gun Control" as the place is nothing be a war zone to begin with. And the fact that they have more gun control than anywhere in the US. And I would make a good bet the bad guys are laughing more than I am. I don't think these fella's shooting themselves to pieces actually go out and get a permit or will run through a background check. The world now is really a chapter out of MAD MAGAZINE.

Lightfoot said, “If the president was really committed to helping us deal with our violence, he would do some easy things. What he would push for is universal background checks, he would push for an assault weapons ban, he would push to make sure that people who are banned from getting on airplanes can’t get guns.”

She did not mention the Chicago-area already has an “assault weapons” ban, thanks to a Cook County prohibition. Moreover, Chicago and the entire state of Illinois already have a licensing process for would-be gun owners that includes a background check.

...and a state’s attorney who fails to prosecute gun violations, like straw buying.
 
Lightfoot: "... he would push to make sure that people who are banned from getting on airplanes can’t get guns.”

The jnfamous unadjudicated No Fly List kept Sen "Ted" Kennedy from flying five times.
An IRA terrorist was using the nome de guerre T Kennedy,
I believe if "Ted" Kennedy had booked his flights using his first or middle names (Edward Moore Kennedy) he would have bypassed the false match in the No Fly List. Seriously. People unjustly blocked from flying were advised to book their flights by variances on their names that did not match the No Fly List. DOes anyone think terrorists did not learn that trick too?
I suspect too that the IRA terrorist T Kennedy could have easily used a different name to bypass the Non Fly List.
The No Fly List kept couples from boarding with babies whose names accidentally matched the No Fly List.

The last Bureau of Justice Statistics, NIJ DoJ, prison inmate survey of convicts who used or carried a gun in the crime for which they were in prison reported 9% got their guns from commercial sources. Adding the No Fly List to the NICS prohibited person database would not inconvenience armed criminals, but a lot of people whose names accidentally march the Non Fly List could be barred from buying guns. As though terrorists don't have their own sources.
 
I am always reading and searching the past of those loud obnoxious politicians, especially those with anti 2A statments/views. I am independently registered and think for myself. The last time I got disgusted with a political election and sat it out as a protest we got a President that gave us an assault weapons ban that thankfully sunseted and a skewed definition of what sex was. My two priorities when voting now are first, Suprime Court appointments (along with lower court as well). And second, the Second Ammendment that ultimately will keep the teeth to maintain the Constitution as written.
I have my own polling that is done locally amongst friends and acquaintances that are on both sides of the issues. I saw that Trump was doing much better than any poll suggested in 2016 but still lobbied my position with those that I knew up to election day. After the election on FB I had a good laugh at the second grade teacher lamenting the fact of how she was going to face her extremely dissapointed classroom. She even considered calling in sick for the remander of the week! This is what we are up against when trying to keep the 2A alive in Maine of all places.
A couple posters in this thread have tried really hard to sway the rest of us to think this type of action is a nothing burger. None of your posts have swayed my opinion on ANYTHING 2A so far. This is not Burger King and no, nobody realistically can have it both ways ever. I think the line has been drawn in the sand and most of us are saying enough is enough!! The majority of their posts always come across as a shill to the anti side as I read them and chuckle.
 
The people in those 8 states are going to be inundated with "junk" mail and robocalls by these groups. They have my sympathy for that and I hope many of them take it for what it is, an "out of state influence" that will alter their lives forever - if they let it. :cuss:
 
Right about now, with the political climate, I really don't see anything advocating gun control as a good idea, especially for a political platform. People who never dreamed of owning a gun are buying guns and I hear CCW classes in my area (SE Cleveland, Ohio suburbs) are booked till September. Advocating gun control just doesn't seem like a real good idea on a political platform.
That's exactly right. Gun control is way down on the list of issues that people are concerned about. Democratic strategists know this, and they're trying to stay far away from mentioning guns. Unfortunately they have a candidate (Biden) who says the stupidest things at the worst times. But look down-ticket. All the crucial Senate races are in gun-friendly states. You think Steve Bullock is going to push for gun control in.... Montana? No. And if he gets elected, is he going to vote for any significant gun control in Congress? Again no. Even the antigunners' icon, Mark Kelly, is trying to downplay gun control in Arizona. You'd think he'd be leading the charge on confiscating "assault weapons." No -- he's now saying that he wants to bring them under the NFA. That's a nothing proposition, because we all know there's no way that could work. He's just tossing out a word salad, the same way Kamala Harris did in the primaries.
 
I think the political symbols are appropriate for the parties Dems open their mouths with ever changing views of the day and prove they are that symbol.

Republicans are thick skinned and have long memories of past problems and tend to vote for the long term.

Gun control might be waaaay down on some peoples radars but to the core here it never drops very far and we keep lobbying fence sitters on this issue. Especially those new gun owners that need to understand what is at stake that they never had to think about before. Like ammo background checks and registration schemes to name a couple. Point out the couple in St Louis that ordered to relinquish their firearms and later were arrested for protecting their home against a mob of protesters and the local DA that said their response was criminal despite stand your ground laws there. The truth will set the party of emotions free if they will let it.
 
Walkalong that's why I cut the cable years ago. I depend on the computer for my daily dose of mind numbing. By now I know the sites to go to for fairly honest info. I only use Google for jerky recipes and goofy you tube cat or squirrel videos. No face off and no pay your pal either. Life is much simpler these days now that I am retired and can do as I want to, not as I had to previously. I have been going around and putting the Trump signs back up that get pitched into the woods every night lately. If it is like 2016 they will start burning them soon though.:confused::D
 
Walkalong that's why I cut the cable years ago. I depend on the computer for my daily dose of mind numbing. By now I know the sites to go to for fairly honest info. I only use Google for jerky recipes and goofy you tube cat or squirrel videos. No face off and no pay your pal either. Life is much simpler these days now that I am retired and can do as I want to, not as I had to previously. I have been going around and putting the Trump signs back up that get pitched into the woods every night lately. If it is like 2016 they will start burning them soon though.:confused::D
That's weird, I thought the left cherished free speech. I've been doing the same around here with the signs. Waaay to many Subarus moving in.
 
I am in agreement with those who do not see the sky falling when it comes to gun rights after the election even if Biden wins. It takes a majority of the House and 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill. Just getting a majority in the Senate is not enough to pass legislation. While that Senate rule could be changed, and threats to change it have been made by both parties it has survived for many years because it reinforces the need to negotiate legislation to pass it. I think the last few months have to have made legislators know that American are buying guns and want to continue to do so. But I do think that universal background checks will pass not matter who gets elected. The only reason it has not passed recently is because of the election. With most voters in favor of it the pols will pass it once the election scrutiny ends.

The 60 votes requirement is a Senate rule. The Dems have already said if they get the majority in the Senate they are going to change the rules to where only a majority is required.

This could well lead to one party controlling all three.
 
The 60 votes requirement is a Senate rule. The Dems have already said if they get the majority in the Senate they are going to change the rules to where only a majority is required.
That is correct. However, a Democratic majority in the Senate does not translate into a gun control majority. There are a number of Democratic senators from gun-friendly states (including most of the prospective newly-elected ones) that would not automatically go along with a gun control agenda. The broadening of the Democratic party that we may see this fall will mean that it will become less antigun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top