Prominent Anti-Gunners Biden, Bloomberg and Giffords on cover of Time Magazine

[CmdrSlander]

Time Magazine has thrown its full support behind new gun control measures with next month's cover story which paints Biden, Bloomberg and Giffords as the white knights who will defeat the eeeevil gun lobby. It pleads with them to "stop the violence." It dubs the trio "the gunfighters" and lauds their efforts. In an interview Bloomberg announces the he will make his entire fortune available to Antigun causes. If he really does this will mean that from Bloomberg alone anti-gunners have 10 times the budget of the NRA at their disposal.

We are in for a long fight. :banghead:

 

[Creature]

I saw it on the newsstand while waiting in line at the commissary today. I almost threw up.

 

[berettaprofessor]

"Hi, Honey. No, don't bother making anything for supper; I'm sick to my stomach."

 

[the iron horse]

I stopped ready Time years ago.

Has anyone read the article?

I agree with most folks here, that we are in for a fight
when the mass media seems hell bent against us.

 

[timmy4]

Don't you think you guys help them by refusing to compromise on even mild gun restrictions? For instance, polls suggest that something like 80% of the public is in favor of removing the private sales loophole, yet the NRA and its supporters are fighting tooth and nail to keep it in place. It makes your side sound extremist.

 

[CmdrSlander]

Don't you think you guys help them by refusing to compromise on even mild gun restrictions? For instance, polls suggest that something like 80% of the public is in favor of removing the private sales loophole, yet the NRA and its supporters are fighting tooth and nail to keep it in place. It makes your side sound extremist.

We are extremists.

 

[Baba Louie]

It makes your side sound extremist.

We have been compromising since 1968 at the very least timmy4 (some might say 1934). Giving up for "common sense" laws one foot or loophole at a time. And criminals? They keep on criminalating don't they? Crazy people keep on being crazy too?

But the law abiding? They keep being compromised.

It does get old sir.

 

[Cosmoline]

Timmy, it's not a loophole--it was a key part of the compromise that created NICS in the first place. Which kind of undercuts the whole notion of "compromise" with the grabbers, doesn't it? We agree to the NICS system and they immediately go back on their word and try to expand it. If we give them an AWB they'll immediately start expanding it as well. Indeed Dianne's newest version IS a substantial expansion of the failed 1994 AWB.

I'm not adverse to a GOP counter-measure doing an end-run around their efforts. But joining with them? Forget it. These people are the enemy. They want us and our way of life destroyed, and could give a flying penguin about the children. Not to mention the fact that each and every one of them from Michael Moore to Michael Bloomberg has layers of armed security.

 

[CmdrSlander]

We are extremists.

Also, ending the private sales loophole is unenforceable and would allow the government to institute a defacto ban on legal gun sales buy defunding or shutting down the National Instant Criminal Check system.

 

[berettaprofessor]

Timmy4; you have a nice large wedding cake. I come by and suggest that you compromise with me and give me 1/2 of your cake. That's the NFA act of 1934. Then I come back later and suggest that you compromise with me and give me half of the half-cake you still have. That's the 1968 Gun control act.

Now I come by later and want half of the 1/4 of the cake you still have remaining. Get the picture?

 

[c4v3man]

Don't you think you guys help them by refusing to compromise on even mild gun restrictions? For instance, polls suggest that something like 80% of the public is in favor of removing the private sales loophole, yet the NRA and its supporters are fighting tooth and nail to keep it in place. It makes your side sound extremist.

Why back a system that routinely fails? If NICS was worth a damn maybe I'd support it, but in it's current incarnation, it's worthless. Even Obama's changes to the system won't make a significant difference.

Also, how do you propose to stop criminals from buying guns? Because most of them won't go through a background check irregardless of whether or not it's "required". Similar to how drugs are illegal yet available just about anywhere...

 

[hogshead]

I smell a troll.

 

[Art Eatman]

Aw, well, troll or no, it wasn't much of a thread anyhow.