Bloomberg'$ $peech

[Pertinacious Tom]

Who argues with strangers?

 

[jocal505]

Someone looking for a fight.

 

[jocal505]

Who argues with a stranger?

Road ragers. Jealous boyfriends under the influence in a bar. Someone who feels dissed (or is bumped into) in a chance encounter on the street. Aaron Hernandez.

The arguments in the U.S., according to learned experts, are exasperated by the nearness of guns.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Who are you?

Sincerely,

Publius

It was supposed to be funny, Jocal. PA is mostly arguments among strangers.

No joke can withstand explanation.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Bloomberg Group to $tart $urveying Candidate$

The gun-control group founded by former New York mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) will begin surveying all federal candidates in the 2014 midterm elections on gun issues Monday as it tries to become a political counterweight to the National Rifle Association.

This is the first big step by Bloomberg — who has committed to spending $50 million of his personal fortune this year to build a national grass-roots movement that will pressure lawmakers to pass more restrictive gun laws — to devise a political strategy heading into the November elections.

Sometimes, grass just grows in open areas. Spontaneously, naturally. That's the origin of the term "grass-roots" movement: it's something that grew naturally.

I think the right word for a "movement" that is really a vanity project by a billionaire is grassrootsy. In this case, a grassrootsy rebranding of the failed Illegal Mayors Against Guns.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Fwiw, here's his ten questions that he's asking candidates to answer...

http://gunsensevoter.org/10questions/

Still whining about the "terror gap" that allows people on the secret "no fly" list to buy guns, huh?

I guess they have not heard or do not care that the list has been ruled unconstitutional.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=158221

 

[jocal505]

What happened to jocal? He was always good for a laugh.

Why should I associate with gun dumbassery which is consistently less than honest?

We have many things to learn on the topic of U.S, gun mentality. Good, fact-based reading on this subject is available elsewhere.

Wank away, Jeff and Tom. But I'm not through.

 

[Spatial Ed]

Oh goody! He lives!

Why don't you call him a cunt and give him a laurel and and a hardy handshake.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

$peak on, Bloomberg

...Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety” $50 million lobbying organization has now officially entered the dueling initiatives battle. Everytown will be pushing for passage of Initiative 594, the complicated 18-page gun control measure that is so onerous even many law enforcement professionals oppose it.

Yesterday’s editorial in the Colorado Springs Gazette may seem to have been poking fun about Bloomberg’s dismissive remark suggesting that people who voted for gun rights are hicks who live in places without roads, but it was actually as serious as a rattlesnake bite. The editorial clearly called Bloomberg a liar without actually using the word, setting the record straight about the recall efforts that removed Senators John Morse and Angela Giron, and forced Sen. Evie Hudak to resign.

On Thursday, the Daily Caller and KDVR both did stories about Bloomberg’s “elitist comments” that suggested — as the Gazette editorial so cleverly observed — the former mayor considers those who oppose his gun efforts to be “dumb rednecks” who “ain’t got the sense to vote as the big-city mayor done told us to.”

Here in Washington — which is something of a test tube for Bloomberg and fellow gun prohibitionists to gauge how well, and how expensive, the initiative approach to eroding gun owner privacy will work — I-594 has become a battle between well-heeled urban elitists and the rest of the population, among which there are a couple of million gun owners. If I-594 passes here, proponents will use what they learn from this effort to push similar measures in other states.

The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR), which is pushing I-594, has consistently portrayed itself as the underdog against the National Rifle Association “and its allies.” In truth, it’s WAGR that has the big bucks behind it while the grassroots effort to pass the alternative measure, Initiative 591, has raised only about half of what the I-594 camp has already spent.

The NRA is not, and never has been, part of the “Protect Our Gun Rights” coalition behind the I-591 effort. Public Disclosure Commission records prove that. The NRA finally entered the fray, but only to mount opposition to I-594 by educating voters about its hidden invasiveness.

But expect gun control proponents to eventually smear the I-594 opposition as “gun nuts” and hicks; the caricature redneck low-brows who starve their families, abuse their pets and talk to their guns. It’s the same kind of social bigotry practiced by Bloomberg when he said, “The NRA went after two or three state senators in a part of Colorado where I don’t think there’s roads. It’s as far rural as you can get.”...

 

[Raz'r]

Hey, all speech is protected, right?

 

[jocal505]

$peak on, Bloomberg

...Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety” $50 million lobbying organization has now officially entered the dueling initiatives battle. Everytown will be pushing for passage of Initiative 594, the complicated 18-page gun control measure that is so onerous even many law enforcement professionals oppose it.

Yesterday’s editorial in the Colorado Springs Gazette may seem to have been poking fun about Bloomberg’s dismissive remark suggesting that people who voted for gun rights are hicks who live in places without roads, but it was actually as serious as a rattlesnake bite. The editorial clearly called Bloomberg a liar without actually using the word, setting the record straight about the recall efforts that removed Senators John Morse and Angela Giron, and forced Sen. Evie Hudak to resign.

On Thursday, the Daily Caller and KDVR both did stories about Bloomberg’s “elitist comments” that suggested — as the Gazette editorial so cleverly observed — the former mayor considers those who oppose his gun efforts to be “dumb rednecks” who “ain’t got the sense to vote as the big-city mayor done told us to.”

Here in Washington — which is something of a test tube for Bloomberg and fellow gun prohibitionists to gauge how well, and how expensive, the initiative approach to eroding gun owner privacy will work — I-594 has become a battle between well-heeled urban elitists and the rest of the population, among which there are a couple of million gun owners. If I-594 passes here, proponents will use what they learn from this effort to push similar measures in other states.

The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR), which is pushing I-594, has consistently portrayed itself as the underdog against the National Rifle Association “and its allies.” In truth, it’s WAGR that has the big bucks behind it while the grassroots effort to pass the alternative measure, Initiative 591, has raised only about half of what the I-594 camp has already spent.

The NRA is not, and never has been, part of the “Protect Our Gun Rights” coalition behind the I-591 effort. Public Disclosure Commission records prove that. The NRA finally entered the fray, but only to mount opposition to I-594 by educating voters about its hidden invasiveness.

But expect gun control proponents to eventually smear the I-594 opposition as “gun nuts” and hicks; the caricature redneck low-brows who starve their families, abuse their pets and talk to their guns. It’s the same kind of social bigotry practiced by Bloomberg when he said, “The NRA went after two or three state senators in a part of Colorado where I don’t think there’s roads. It’s as far rural as you can get.”...

Not to weigh in for elite snobbery... But it raises an interesting point on perceptions of gunowners. Including Joe Biden and his shotgun-off-the-back-porch imagery. My personal observation is that your own talking points indicate a sophomoric sub-culture type reality...while allowing an extremist element to present a destructive profile.

A hip magazine featuring some pretty good investigative reporters just did a lengthy but excellent article on Gun Owners of America founder Larry Pratt. On the subject of any general gunowner categorizations, here's the TTAG founder, in Rolling Stone:



"I would say, yes, Pratt's conservatism will hinder him," says Robert Farago, publisher of TheTruthAboutGuns.com. "Gun owners are diverse. They go across the spectrum, sexuality, politics, race. There is a new wave of gun owners who are libertarians, not social conservatives at all. . .The real battle among gun rights groups is for the new people coming in. We're getting a lot more women. Minorities are the future . . .We have excellent demographic data. The small, more pure groups have the momentum. We call the NRA member an OFWG — Old Fat White Guy."

 

[jocal505]

But Tom, about your source. He's only one click above your source from not long ago

Quote

Molon Labe: two words for ultimate defense.

[...]

An armed society is a polite society

[…]

Note for non-American readers: Crime reports from America which describe an offender just as a "teen" or "teenager" almost invariably mean a BLACK teenager.

Quote

How much do you know about Trayvon Martin? Did you recognize him in the picture above? If not you may need to know more about him. It's all here

Quote

HOW ODD THAT MASSACRES MOSTLY HAPPEN IN "GUN-FREE ZONES"!

When will the brain-dead Left wake up and draw the obvious conclusion?

Gun bans kill kids

OBAMA WATCH and other links

Immigration Watch International

Leftism Elitism

Marx & Engels

Scripture Commentary

Pasted from <http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/>

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?>

But let's let bygones by bygones. Today your source is Dave Workman,

Self-Bio: Dave Workman is an author, senior editor at TheGunMag.com, communications director for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, award-winning outdoor writer, former member of the NRA Board of Directors and recognized expert on Washington State gun laws.

Pasted from <http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/dave-workman>

Not to mention that he has a lot of facts skewed. The LE groups who have joined him are unknown around here, to my knowledge these names have not appeared in our media, or in our now federally-mandated police changes. But the County Prosecutors, OTOH, are unequivocal in wanting background checks.

Prosecutors' view: Why we need I-594 to promote gun safety

Guest Opinion: It's common sense to require the same background checks on all gun sales. And I-594 builds on our existing background check system to match states where far fewer women are shot by their partners.

We have other national media attention, too. Somehow, Washington State's lax law and approach to collecting guns at the time of restraining orders was featured in a NY Times study and article covering five states. Our RO gun restrictions were stiffened up months ago--which applies to Regatta Dog's thread topic elsewhere.

Research on the problem by The imes identified patterns of violence in which the issuance of orders of protection seemed to set off gun attacks on women. It is therefore important that laws require that firearms be surrendered when the restraining order is issued — “at the most volatile time in an abusive relationship,” noted Mr. Goodman.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Hey, all speech is protected, right?

Should be. That's the purpose of the thread, as I said.

This one is about $peech and I'm here to defend Mr. Bloomberg's rights in that area.

Jocal, before I listen to lectures about "skewed facts" let me ask you a question: do you still believe that a concealed weapons permit can act as any type of shield against gun confiscation in any state? Because if the answer is yes, you have such a fundamental fact screwed up that I'm not going to try to fix it.

 

[jocal505]

Hey, all speech is protected, right?

Should be. That's the purpose of the thread, as I said.

>This one is about $peech and I'm here to defend Mr. Bloomberg's rights in that area.

Jocal, before I listen to lectures about "skewed facts" let me ask you a question: do you still believe that a concealed weapons permit can act as any type of shield against gun confiscation in any state? Because if the answer is yes, you have such a fundamental fact screwed up that I'm not going to try to fix it.

A CCP is certainly no "shield against gun confiscation in any state". Should it be? Did I say it was?

In fact, given a wooh wooh chain of developments I further recognize that CCP records could become a liability.

My point, re-stated: if mayhem follows gun presence you have a problem no matter what you do.

Aussie Minister Howard speaks of a "tipping point" with guns, where they WILL be needed against others with guns.

Where that point is is a matter of perception, yes, but I would not develop such an aberration.

To repeat a cultural basic, the retributive "eye for an eye" became "judge not" with Jesus 2500 yrs ago.

Now, WTF NRA teaches shoot to kill, you just empty your guns, and Thou Shalt Not Kill has been superseded by the NRA.

(as you assume the CDC should be superseded by them).

CCP is a cultural defeat and inconvenience to the freedom of a predominantly gun-free society.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Jocal, before I listen to lectures about "skewed facts" let me ask you a question: do you still believe that a concealed weapons permit can act as any type of shield against gun confiscation in any state? Because if the answer is yes, you have such a fundamental fact screwed up that I'm not going to try to fix it.

A CCP is certainly no "shield against gun confiscation in any state". Should it be? Did I say it was?

...

Yes, you certainly seemed to think it was in a previous discussion. I asked about people who should not own guns and your response shows that you believed that their CWP's prevented confiscating their guns.

From Tom....

Who do you mean by "certain people" who should not own (or even talk about) firearms?

...

...

I ask again: if you were a magistrate, would you issue a CCP to the four wackos whose pictures I presented?

See how that works, Tom? ..

The "certain people" I refer to, of course, are SA Gun Club premium members (and others) who deny the three problems listed above my "certain people" statement: the deniers of gun violence, the deniers of the very existence of assault weapons, and the deniers of the gun show loophole. You know who you are, and your positions are lame and irresponsible.

...

You have proceeded, as usual, to deny the result of your promotion of "shall issue" statutes (which were spread through the states like the plague, using cookie-cutter language and legislation, by ALEC). If you are peddling "shall issue": so you own Jared Loughner, Ian Stawicki, and the future: there are more wackos where they came from.

YOU OWN THE CAFE RACER SITUATION. And as of yesterday, you were still promoting its cause.

Your statement that the Cafe Racer situation is "unrelated" to our shall issue statute is less than truthful (to choose a kind term for your prevarication).

RCW 9.41.070 Concealed pistol license — Application — Fee — Renewal.

(1) The chief of police of a municipality or the sheriff of a county shall within thirty days after the filing of an application of any person, issue a license to such person to carry a pistol concealed on his or her person within this state for five years from date of issue, for the purposes of protection or while engaged in business, sport, or while traveling. However, if the applicant does not have a valid permanent Washington driver's license or Washington state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, the issuing authority shall have up to sixty days after the filing of the application to issue a license. The issuing authority shall not refuse to accept completed applications for concealed pistol licenses during regular business hours.

The applicant's constitutional right to bear arms shall not be denied, unless:

(a) He or she is ineligible to possess a firearm under the provisions of RCW 9.41.040 or 9.41.045, or is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law;

( B) The applicant's concealed pistol license is in a revoked status;

© He or she is under twenty-one years of age;

(d) He or she is subject to a court order or injunction regarding firearms [...]

...

BTW, ever notice how, when I characterize a post of yours, I also either link to it or quote it? I'd appreciate the same consideration, if you're able to rise to my level.

 

[jocal505]

Nah, .50 cal Barretts are too big and heavy for home defense.

And BTW - jojo, this is a perfect example of why I don't bother to engage with you any more..... I ask you a direct question above and its like you just ignore it to move right on to your usual cut-n-paste sermonizing. You can have a one way conversation with yourself. You've been doing it for years. Its like you have a standard playbook of answers and if someone actually asks you something that you have to think about and give an intelligent answer that's not in the playbook, you shut down. And then you attempt to distract by pasting something from another area of the playbook.

No one wants to have a conversation with pages of cunt and paste drivel. We've seen it all before. (Accidentally deleted section, we can do that too.) Try it. I challenge you.

But I want you to defend yourself and your position in your own words. And then respond to direct questions or counter-arguments IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Not interested in volumes of cuntnpaste crao that is irrelevant to the posed question.

Enjoy your conversation by yourself. I suspect that is probably the norm for you in real life as well.....

I often use my own words, and state my views clearly, but the learned study stuff is what I have to offer here.

Simple Jeff, I will be following up on our recent conversations, quoting directly and reviewing your understanding.

Jeff. I spend my quality time here, if any, usually entering intelligent, learned, evidence-based stuff. on the topic of U.s. Gun violence

while scanning (and sometimes laughing at), the SA Gun Club's finely oriented groupthink and bumper sticker insights.

Sorry, but following your bumper sticker wisdom is to be in the weeds, a waste of my time.

Dude I work hard , and post pertinent, specific content.

BTW, the studies do not encourage guns everywhere, with any idiot.

They relate that lboth ots of guns in many areas and lax gun laws are damaging the public health.

And Geez the courts say Colorado's Hickenlooper is not tromping on divinely-ordained gun rights, but acting on second amendment fundamentals as it is currently interpreted: restricting some weapons for some purposes at the state level.

Yout elk refused federal control and took your chances with fifty monsters, plus federal control. You got Hickenlooper.

Good job. And good luck with your 51 adversaries, given the unfortunate behaviors predictably associated with out-of-control gun presence.

I am CHALLENGING you to show me wrong. Present some hard information, or research in some peer-reviewed format, by responsible journalism, in graduate theses, or other. And you have... Lott and Kleck.

I have current peer-review showing "robust correlation" between high gun ownership and both homicide and suicide. See below.

Refute it if you can, or accept it, or be ignorant. Your choice.

The "Cunt and Paste Drivel" is the finest research in N. America, and you show signs that you need it repeated, mate.

A study from the American Journal of Public Heath shows that U.S. states with higher estimated rates of gun ownership experience a higher number of firearms-related homicides. The study, led by a Boston University School of Public Health researcher, examines the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) claim that increased gun ownership does not lead to increased gun violence.

The study, covering 30 years (1981-2010) in all 50 states, found a “robust correlation” between estimated levels of gun ownership and actual gun homicides at the state level, even when controlling for factors typically associated with homicides. For each 1 percentage point increase in the prevalence of gun ownership, the state firearm homicide rate increases by 0.9 percent, the authors found. “Understanding the relationship between the prevalence of gun ownership and therefore the availability of guns, and firearm-related mortality is critical to guiding decisions regarding recently proposed measures to address firearm violence,” the authors said. Researchers led by Dr. Michael Siegel, professor of community health sciences at the BU School of Public Health, examined data for the years 1981-2010 on state firearm homicide rates from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQUARS) database.

 

[jocal505]

Not to weigh in for elite snobbery... But it raises an interesting point on perceptions of gunowners. Including Joe Biden and his shotgun-off-the-back-porch imagery. My personal observation is that your own talking points indicate a sophomoric sub-culture type reality...while allowing an extremist element to present a destructive profile.[/size]

That's probably THE most nonsensical paragraph you've ever written here. Can you translate that into English for the rest of us please.
Edit: and that was one of the more obvious messenger attacks seen to date. You took shots at Tom, totally ignored his post and his Op ed points and then posted something of your own as if toms post never existed. You are a piece of work.

Tom's Article Topic: Lefty perception of gunowners. Bloomberg referred to the sticks of CO. Author Workman predicted polarized stereotypes in WA's background check PR...

Tom's post was about the lefties making redneck associations with gunowners:

Hey, I'm a gunowner from an orchard and ranch background.

Farago expanded the idea quite a bit, to gays and ethnics, and even mentioned the competition for gun sport dollars between them.

The idea of redneck perceptions was expanded in my post to the GOA's Larry Pratt, who holds fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Sorry if you can't make the redneck connection, but Rolling Stone can, and does.

Read the quality content, Jeff, or you may fall behind again.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Tom's Article Topic: Lefty perception of gunowners. Bloomberg referred to the sticks of CO. ...

Because Colorado is sooooo backwards that even their second largest city has no roads.

Outside NYC = barbarians in flyover country! according to a guy who has probably never been more than 100 feet from asphalt in his life.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=150407&p=4612672

 

[jocal505]

Jocal, before I listen to lectures about "skewed facts" let me ask you a question: do you still believe that a concealed weapons permit can act as any type of shield against gun confiscation in any state? Because if the answer is yes, you have such a fundamental fact screwed up that I'm not going to try to fix it.

A CCP is certainly no "shield against gun confiscation in any state". Should it be? Did I say it was?

...

Yes, you certainly seemed to think it was in a previous discussion. I asked about people who should not own guns and your response shows that you believed that their CWP's prevented confiscating their guns.

>>

From Tom....

Who do you mean by "certain people" who should not own (or even talk about) firearms?

...

...

I ask again: if you were a magistrate, would you issue a CCP to the four wackos whose pictures I presented?

See how that works, Tom? ..

The "certain people" I refer to, of course, are SA Gun Club premium members (and others) who deny the three problems listed above my "certain people" statement: the deniers of gun violence, the deniers of the very existence of assault weapons, and the deniers of the gun show loophole. You know who you are, and your positions are lame and irresponsible.

...

You have proceeded, as usual, to deny the result of your promotion of "shall issue" statutes (which were spread through the states like the plague, using cookie-cutter language and legislation, by ALEC). If you are peddling "shall issue": so you own Jared Loughner, Ian Stawicki, and the future: there are more wackos where they came from.

YOU OWN THE CAFE RACER SITUATION. And as of yesterday, you were still promoting its cause.

Your statement that the Cafe Racer situation is "unrelated" to our shall issue statute is less than truthful (to choose a kind term for your prevarication).

RCW 9.41.070 Concealed pistol license — Application — Fee — Renewal.

(1) The chief of police of a municipality or the sheriff of a county shall within thirty days after the filing of an application of any person, issue a license to such person to carry a pistol concealed on his or her person within this state for five years from date of issue, for the purposes of protection or while engaged in business, sport, or while traveling. However, if the applicant does not have a valid permanent Washington driver's license or Washington state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, the issuing authority shall have up to sixty days after the filing of the application to issue a license. The issuing authority shall not refuse to accept completed applications for concealed pistol licenses during regular business hours.

The applicant's constitutional right to bear arms shall not be denied, unless:

(a) He or she is ineligible to possess a firearm under the provisions of RCW 9.41.040 or 9.41.045, or is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law;

( B) The applicant's concealed pistol license is in a revoked status;

© He or she is under twenty-one years of age;

(d) He or she is subject to a court order or injunction regarding firearms [...]

...

BTW, ever notice how, when I characterize a post of yours, I also either link to it or quote it? I'd appreciate the same consideration, if you're able to rise to my level.

Tom, you are primo at capturing the thread links. And I'd like to pick that up from you...but the links go back to SA Gun Club stonewalling and denial, and weak, less-than-informed arguments, and dishonest propaganda, bumper-sticker infantile wisdom, etc.

My computer is not for the purpose of storing dumbassery, if you can relate. But it has plenty of room for evidence-based research, and learned suggestions.

Thank you for trying to sort the Cafe Racer mass shooting, because "shall issue" played a part in killing Drew there.

Somehow, your shall issue was easier to obtain than it was to revoke, during five troubled years of armed domestic stress, in the case of Ian Stawicki.

His father made an effort to get the permit revoked, but a fourteen-day mandatory mental health confinement was the criterium...

Then Ian Stawicki killed five and himself with two (of his six) handguns.

We got burned; Drew Keriakedes and the others are gun-gone now. Screw your shall issue; it is indiscriminate by definition, then difficult to reverse. IMO your glib promotion of essentially automatic "shall issue" sets this problem up happen again, too.

Furthermore, Badgeless Tom, MLK would roll in his grave to hear you use his name to preach "shall issue", as a means for your vision of armed social justice. It's the same weak, pat, MLK answer you also used years ago, too. LMAO.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Denying rights because of race is good, and MLK was glad to had his permit application denied for that reason. Got it.

A list of criteria to be met is "indiscriminate" as well. Glad you cleared that up.