Bloomberg'$ $peech

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,896
2,017
Punta Gorda FL
Bloomberg plans $50 million challenge to NRA

“They say, ‘We don’t care. We’re going to go after you,’ ” he said of the N.R.A. “ ‘If you don’t vote with us we’re going to go after your kids and your grandkids and your great-grandkids. And we’re never going to stop.’ ”

He added: “We’ve got to make them afraid of us.”

...

What is more, for many gun owners, the issue is a deeply personal one that energizes them politically, said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, who dismissed the mayor’s plans.

“He’s got the money to waste,” Mr. Pratt said. “So I guess he’s free to do so. But frankly, I think he’s going to find out why his side keeps losing.”

The N.R.A. had no comment.

...

The $50 million could be significant: In recent years, the N.R.A. has spent only $20 million annually on political activities. The political groups affiliated with the billionaire Koch brothers, who are seeking to help Republicans take over the Senate, have spent about $30 million in the last six months.

...

His financial commitment to reducing gun violence could grow. When asked how much he was willing to spend, he tossed out the $50 million figure out as if he were describing the tip he left on a restaurant check.

“I put $50 million this year, last year into coal, $53 million into oceans,” he said with a shrug, describing his clean energy and sustainable fishing initiatives. “Certainly a number like that, $50 million. Let’s see what happens.”

$153 million is quite a bit compared to those piker Koch guys who only spent $30 million.

I look forward to seeing all future complaints about buying elections punctuated by a reference to Bloomberg instead of the Koch brothers or the gun lobby.

Actually, I look forward to pointing out that the Koch brothers are pikers compared to Bloomie every time they are mentioned. ;)

 

billy backstay

Backstay, never bought a suit, never went to Vegas
I don't think the Koch Bros give a rats fart about the second amendment. So long as they can protect their 470 billion in corporate welfare, they will continue to purchase the Republican party, one Congress Critter at a time....

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Death Roll

Super Anarchist
5,623
0
Bloomberg plans $50 million challenge to NRA

“They say, ‘We don’t care. We’re going to go after you,’ ” he said of the N.R.A. “ ‘If you don’t vote with us we’re going to go after your kids and your grandkids and your great-grandkids. And we’re never going to stop.’ ”

He added: “We’ve got to make them afraid of us.”

...

What is more, for many gun owners, the issue is a deeply personal one that energizes them politically, said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, who dismissed the mayor’s plans.

“He’s got the money to waste,” Mr. Pratt said. “So I guess he’s free to do so. But frankly, I think he’s going to find out why his side keeps losing.”

The N.R.A. had no comment.

...

The $50 million could be significant: In recent years, the N.R.A. has spent only $20 million annually on political activities. The political groups affiliated with the billionaire Koch brothers, who are seeking to help Republicans take over the Senate, have spent about $30 million in the last six months.

...

His financial commitment to reducing gun violence could grow. When asked how much he was willing to spend, he tossed out the $50 million figure out as if he were describing the tip he left on a restaurant check.

“I put $50 million this year, last year into coal, $53 million into oceans,” he said with a shrug, describing his clean energy and sustainable fishing initiatives. “Certainly a number like that, $50 million. Let’s see what happens.”

$153 million is quite a bit compared to those piker Koch guys who only spent $30 million.

I look forward to seeing all future complaints about buying elections punctuated by a reference to Bloomberg instead of the Koch brothers or the gun lobby.

Actually, I look forward to pointing out that the Koch brothers are pikers compared to Bloomie every time they are mentioned. ;)
I am opposed to Bloomberg "speech" as much as I am to Koch "speech."

I do feel compelled to point out to you that you are blending amounts spent in "this year, last year" with "in the last 6 months."

 

tuk tuk Joe

Super Anarchist
8,757
0
SEA
I don't think the Koch Bros give a rats fart about the second amendment. So long as they can protect their 470 billion in corporate welfare, they will continue to purchase the Republican party, one Congress Critter at a time....
jackass alert code red...
giggle.gif


 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,896
2,017
Punta Gorda FL
Bloomberg plans $50 million challenge to NRA

“They say, ‘We don’t care. We’re going to go after you,’ ” he said of the N.R.A. “ ‘If you don’t vote with us we’re going to go after your kids and your grandkids and your great-grandkids. And we’re never going to stop.’ ”

He added: “We’ve got to make them afraid of us.”

...

What is more, for many gun owners, the issue is a deeply personal one that energizes them politically, said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, who dismissed the mayor’s plans.

“He’s got the money to waste,” Mr. Pratt said. “So I guess he’s free to do so. But frankly, I think he’s going to find out why his side keeps losing.”

The N.R.A. had no comment.

...

The $50 million could be significant: In recent years, the N.R.A. has spent only $20 million annually on political activities. The political groups affiliated with the billionaire Koch brothers, who are seeking to help Republicans take over the Senate, have spent about $30 million in the last six months.

...

His financial commitment to reducing gun violence could grow. When asked how much he was willing to spend, he tossed out the $50 million figure out as if he were describing the tip he left on a restaurant check.

“I put $50 million this year, last year into coal, $53 million into oceans,” he said with a shrug, describing his clean energy and sustainable fishing initiatives. “Certainly a number like that, $50 million. Let’s see what happens.”

$153 million is quite a bit compared to those piker Koch guys who only spent $30 million.

I look forward to seeing all future complaints about buying elections punctuated by a reference to Bloomberg instead of the Koch brothers or the gun lobby.

Actually, I look forward to pointing out that the Koch brothers are pikers compared to Bloomie every time they are mentioned. ;)
I am opposed to Bloomberg "speech" as much as I am to Koch "speech."

I do feel compelled to point out to you that you are blending amounts spent in "this year, last year" with "in the last 6 months."
Yeah, sorry, I did not notice that the NY Times blended them.

I support their right to free speech no matter what point they wish to make. I'd buy boats with the money. Some people are less self-centered or more control-freaky and want to spend money influencing others instead of buying boats. Some of them have a lot of money. Good for them.

I don't think the world would be a better place if Bloomberg or the Koch bros were somehow muzzled and prevented from spending their money to promote their opinions. I think it's wrong to put limits on expression. They should decide when they have expressed themselves enough.

 

Rum Runner

Rum Runner
5,325
326
Illinois
Bloomberg shares the same delusion that the Koch brothers have. The both believe that spending lots of money will solve society's problems. Basically the money they spend is preaching to the choir. They need a real, logical argument for non-believers to get behind their ideas.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,397
325
near Seattle, Wa
Hi everybody. We meet again.

@ Sean, Spatial, and Flasher, you do good work. Carry on, bros.

Several leading gun violence researchers and authors (Tom Diaz particularly, but also Dr. Arthur Kellerman, Dr. Daniel Webster, Dr. David Hemenway IIRC), in their overviews, conclude that the gun foolishness is challengeable, but point out that no cohesive organization has ever come forward to offset the destructive, even evil, effects of the NRA/SAF/gun lobby.

Bloomberg could, and probably will IMO, make a difference here, especially combined with the average concerns of the typical mother and housewife. (Historically, the latter have been quite effective against gun proliferation: according to the History Channel, the nurture and outlook of the average female tamed the Wild West, not Samuel Colt.)

So go ahead and dismiss Bloomberg (as many of you have, and will). Please proceed to belittle and underestimate him, and the Demanding Mothers, too. But here we probably have a missing link towards solving this problem.

Which problem? Our U.S. gun violence problem. One which is 19.5X worse than other high-income countries. Unfortunately many in the pro-rights side think that having it settle at the present horrific rate is acceptable. WTF? With 110,000 human bullet perforations in the U.S. per year, a figure which is growing when one accounts for gun incident survivors, the damage should not be considered negligible IMO. The guns are bringing about their own demise: natural selection.

Somehow we have to roll back the pattern of the gun violence, and the cultural deterioration brought by the many who are promoting vigilante-based law and order.

My take: Bloomberg is committing to a key role here. Good on him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
The missing link to solving our "gun violence" problem is a rebranding of a failing GC propaganda group. Sure, ok.

I am not sure that it is a good idea to get your history from the same people that bring you "swamp people" and "pawn stars", but that just may be me. If you can confirm whatever the History Channel tells you by checking on Facebook, you are probably good to go.

 

Dorado

Super Anarchist
7,650
768
Too bad he won't spend the 50 million on schizophrenia research.

Might actually do something meaningful.

 
G

Guest

Guest
Hi everybody. We meet again.

@ Sean, Spatial, and Flasher, you do good work. Carry on, bros.

Several leading gun violence researchers and authors (Tom Diaz particularly, but also Dr. Arthur Kellerman, Dr. Daniel Webster, Dr. David Hemenway IIRC), in their overviews, conclude that the gun foolishness is challengeable, but point out that no cohesive organization has ever come forward to offset the destructive, even evil, effects of the NRA/SAF/gun lobby.

Bloomberg could, and probably will IMO, make a difference here, especially combined with the average concerns of the typical mother and housewife. (Historically, the latter have been quite effective against gun proliferation: according to the History Channel, the nurture and outlook of the average female tamed the Wild West, not Samuel Colt.)

So go ahead and dismiss Bloomberg (as many of you have, and will). Please proceed to belittle and underestimate him, and the Demanding Mothers, too. But here we probably have a missing link towards solving this problem.

Which problem? Our U.S. gun violence problem. One which is 19.5X worse than other high-income countries. Unfortunately many in the pro-rights side think that having it settle at the present horrific rate is acceptable. WTF? With 110,000 human bullet perforations in the U.S. per year, a figure which is growing when one accounts for gun incident survivors, the damage should not be considered negligible IMO. The guns are bringing about their own demise: natural selection.

Somehow we have to roll back the pattern of the gun violence, and the cultural deterioration brought by the many who are promoting vigilante-based law and order.

My take: Bloomberg is committing to a key role here. Good on him.
Welcome back jocal..... although I doubt you will stick around long enough to actually engage in a discussion and instead prefer to conduct drive by shootings.

But hope springs eternal...... so since you brought up mothers likely being the key to the gun violence debate - tell me what avenue did that other group of Mothers use to change the scourge of the drunken driving epidemic? Did they:

a ) blame the booze itself as well as go after the people who made the booze, sold the booze, and drank the booze responsibly and without any negative societal effect? Or....

b ) Did they seek to change behavior of those who used booze irresponsibly, illegally sold booze to minors, sold booze to known drunks with keys in their hands, increase awareness of irresponsible booze use and encourgage people to report abusers to the police or take their keys away ebfore they could get behind the wheel?

a or b, Jocal. Simple and direct question. I'll be waiting for your answer paitiently. Thanks in advance.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,896
2,017
Punta Gorda FL
Oh boy, another potentially good thread ruined because JBSF decided he can make sense of Jocal.

This one is about money and the first amendment, not guns and the second amendment, by the way.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,397
325
near Seattle, Wa
Hi everybody. We meet again.

@ Sean, Spatial, and Flasher, you do good work. Carry on, bros.

Several leading gun violence researchers and authors (Tom Diaz particularly, but also Dr. Arthur Kellerman, Dr. Daniel Webster, Dr. David Hemenway IIRC), in their overviews, conclude that the gun foolishness is challengeable, but point out that no cohesive organization has ever come forward to offset the destructive, even evil, effects of the NRA/SAF/gun lobby.

Bloomberg could, and probably will IMO, make a difference here, especially combined with the average concerns of the typical mother and housewife. (Historically, the latter have been quite effective against gun proliferation: according to the History Channel, the nurture and outlook of the average female tamed the Wild West, not Samuel Colt.)

So go ahead and dismiss Bloomberg (as many of you have, and will). Please proceed to belittle and underestimate him, and the Demanding Mothers, too. But here we probably have a missing link towards solving this problem.

Which problem? Our U.S. gun violence problem. One which is 19.5X worse than other high-income countries. Unfortunately many in the pro-rights side think that having it settle at the present horrific rate is acceptable. WTF? With 110,000 human bullet perforations in the U.S. per year, a figure which is growing when one accounts for gun incident survivors, the damage should not be considered negligible IMO. The guns are bringing about their own demise: natural selection.

Somehow we have to roll back the pattern of the gun violence, and the cultural deterioration brought by the many who are promoting vigilante-based law and order.

My take: Bloomberg is committing to a key role here. Good on him.
Welcome back jocal..... although I doubt you will stick around long enough to actually engage in a discussion and instead prefer to conduct drive by shootings.

But hope springs eternal...... so since you brought up mothers likely being the key to the gun violence debate - tell me what avenue did that other group of Mothers use to change the scourge of the drunken driving epidemic? Did they:

a ) blame the booze itself as well as go after the people who made the booze, sold the booze, and drank the booze responsibly and without any negative societal effect? Or....

b ) Did they seek to change behavior of those who used booze irresponsibly, illegally sold booze to minors, sold booze to known drunks with keys in their hands, increase awareness of irresponsible booze use and encourgage people to report abusers to the police or take their keys away ebfore they could get behind the wheel?

a or b, Jocal. Simple and direct question. I'll be waiting for your answer paitiently. Thanks in advance.
I'll be direct when I want to, Jeff. And I'll be indirect when I want to. So hey, if you want discourse then take it easy with any mindless abuse. After reading any I may use drive-by shooting approaches (sniper tactics), when not reading edifying (as opposed to mindless) material elsewhere. Please consider the quality-of-life issues in play

You taught me a lot, Jeff: the rationale of the modern gunslinger. Seriously, thanks, because (here I repeat myself) the subject of guns in the U.S. fascinates me.

I once adored guns as a kid, they soon taught me how to be trustworthy, so I could have the honor of owning a single-shot .22 at age ten. Now, I find that the gun culture which is emerging from the modern NRA is not trustworthy whatsoever. Their logic is slimy, their results irresponsible, and they are giving recreational weapons, and even battlefield weapons, a bad name,

Yeah, I've got general concerns with your local elk, Jeff. Let's review some.

--In 2012 you sold me that the pro-rights dudes (and their buddy Anton Scalia, a passionate turkey hunter) were balancing the true beauty and inter-related wisdom within the Bill of Rights. Correct? Then...

--Yikes, your supporters in the core of the SA Gun Club were uhmm entirely silent about the ignorance factor of stifling gun violence study in the present situation. Dudes, that's a game I have no time to participate in. For any who wishes to support these docs on THIS thread, I will retract my statement wrt to each. Chime in, boys.

--Prior to that dumbassery, in the calendar year 2012, you, Mariachi, and Tom Ray had each argued or stated there was no gun problem (Tom: "A non-solution to a non-problem sounds good to me." I will not cite these revolting, detestable views, but it was the days of the 12-month thread So You Support Gun Proliferation, eh?)

--That thread ended Dec. 14, the day of Sandy Hook, because it just broke my heart to be so correct about the U.S. gun problem...as demonstrated so horrifically by the little shit with the assault weapon in a grade school. Though I had taken a gentle, openly pacifist position, my prescience about the possible use of an AW made me feel like quite a ghoul when it happened. It was painful, Jeff, for me to be right about present gun policy in the U.S.

--The claims by the three of you jokers that there was no gun problem also ended that day. Your tone was different for three days, too. This moment of progress brought to you by Adam Fucking Lanza and the consumer product he carried.

--Before those kids were in the ground, on the Wednesday after a Friday shooting, IIRC, Boothy was crowing about a 35% surge of worth to his gun arsenal generated by this heinous, predictable occurrence. BIG Wow.

--I had an open mind and was still considering your lofty support for "freedom" when two interactions happened in 2013: you exposed your actual Second Amendment principles, as opposed to what you presented in your broader philosophical context. When I repeatedly inquired about the NRA's concerted efforts to silence doctors, no First Amendment balance for these sworn medical professionals was supported by your elk. Zilch. Okay...

The second bit happened in December: the SA Gun Club accepted (and you, Jeff, defended by some obtuse legal mumbo-jumbo) the silencing of Dick Metcalf's discussion of "restrictions" of "rights" on Guns & Ammo, and his termination ten days before Christmas. Yep, both the SA Gun Club and the entire Gun Club Choir went all crickets about this obvious imbalance of the Bill of Rights--something you had taught me to respect not long ago. Hmm, no BoR balance involved with these "patriots", eh?

*****************************

Now I'll address your question, Jeff, because you are really stuck on this.

MADD discouraged boozy behavior when combined with driving. They did it in a many-faceted way--you just listed many of their successful approaches. It worked when they caught the popular consciousness, laying out the destruction of drunk drivers outlined in available stats), and when the courts then backed them up. Booze + cars, and DUI's, began to be openly discouraged. Post-MADD, such drinkers acquired consequences...and court-ordered training, counselling, and support, too.

You seem to be hurting because gun use and ownership are now being openly (and as much as possible, legally) discouraged. In a way not unlike MADD's work, I communicate: I discourage and question gun acceptance in general.

Your direct analogy to MADD breaks down a bit because first off, MADD had un-molested data to work with. Secondly, their focal precipitator of auto mayhem (alcohol) is singular. When transferred to the catylists of gun mayhem, the dangerous precipitators of gun mis-use (randomly stated and in no particular order) might be anger, jealousy, greed, typical domestic disputes, bad driving, street gang power issues, territorial issues, depression, envy, etc--any number of human behaviors. Criminologists, social scientists, doctors, mothers (and even many gunowners such as myself) will not be expecting these collective behaviors to change any time soon. We ARE NOT AWAITING IMMINENT PROGRESS on the behavior-mod level to approach gun mis-use (nor should we). Can you get beyond that, please?

The third part of your false equivalency is that MADD did not have to deal with a lobby comparable to the NRA, or to an amendment whish has been distorted on its face by the SCOTUS--which is a personal disappointment and a national embarassment.

Are you (and particularly the Chesapeake Guy) expecting the Seven Deadly Sins to change before solving U.S. gun violence? How quaint, whatever, but it won't stop the learned from acting in multiple ways to stem the present gun violence hemorrhage...which is a real mess you seem to be not copping to.

The scientific community sees each gun as an agent in each problem, and Jeffie it is that. If I am correct, you disagree with this last bit, but by definition the presence of the gun itself figures into behavior, occurrences, and outcomes. Sorry, but your tiny, tiny fraction of gun perps is leaving a huge, unacceptable, unsustainable, evil footprint...while the collective denial of the modern gun culture (and your SA Gun Club) enables: yep, it contributes to the prob.

************************************************************************

Jeff, I am not motivated so much about winning arguments (with gun wankers or anybody else) as much as into sometimes presenting my P.O.V. (however unique it may or may not be) while viewing the wonders of a continually surprising universe.

You and Tom are wonderful (if misdirected, IMO) parts of that universe.

I will check back for your reply, and will respond to it on my own terms, or not.

You can make it worth my while, or not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:


Latest posts



Top