Bloomberg – Everytown for Gun Safety

I'll bet if I ran a pole at most skeet/trap clubs, they would be you 100% against "Black-Guns". ....
Click to expand...

That sounds about as stereotyped and closed minded as the "Fudds" you think you're referring to. Sure some are. Some will actually have one however.
 
Some trap shooters don't see any need for pistols or tactical rifles. So be it. Not ALL trap shooters feel that way. Now, if you took 1000 guys who are heavily into trap shooting and 1000 guys who are into the AR hobby, there would more than likely be a higher percentage of those in the AR hobby group, (like 100%) who would oppose restrictions on ARs. In the trap shooting group, you would find some percentage, no doubt, who would support restrictions on AR's and other similar types of firearms. I have no clue as to what percentage, but I don't believe it would be over 50%. Of course, if the anti gun media can find even one person who owns a shotgun AND supports restrictions on tactical firearms, the media will have that person front and center and make it appear that there is a high percentage of gun owners who are of the same mindset as this person is.
 
but a few years back I was around a decent size group of gun owners who DID support universal/extended background checks. My local group of trap shooters.
Click to expand...

Of course, if the anti gun media can find even one person who owns a shotgun AND supports restrictions on tactical firearms, the media will have that person front and center and make it appear that there is a high percentage of gun owners who are of the same mindset as this person is.
Click to expand...

As Tom pointed out, it depends on how things are phrased. That trap club in favor of universal background checks would probably change their mind when they find out they had to drive to a gun store and have an FFL run a NICS check every time they wanted to let one of their buddies visiting in their living room mount their new trap gun, and then do it again when they wanted their buddy to give it back 5 minutes later.

And the guy who doesn't read the bill enough to know that's what it says is the one who will support it on MSNBC.
 
It also depends on how well they're informed and how the question is put.

"Do you support regulations to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and the mentally unstable?"

"Sure!"

"So, you support background checks on gun purchases?"

"Well, I suppose so..."

"Even though such a system would entail a registry of all firearms and would come with all sorts of other 'gotcha' provisions?"

"Waitaminnit! What?"

"I'll mark you down as 'yes.' Thanks for your time."
 
Well that didn't take long...
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/bloomberg-anti-gun-backlash-begun-article-1.1772716

Prominent Everytown for Gun Safety Advisory Board member Tom Ridge (Former DHS and Governor) has resigned from Bloomberg's EGS saying "“When I signed on as an adviser to Everytown, I looked forward to a thoughtful and provocative discussion about the toll gun violence takes on Americans. After consultation with Everytown, I have decided that I am uncomfortable with their expected electoral work."


The article, by S. E. Cupp, goes on to describe several mayors with MAIG who had similar experiences and joined thinking they were exploring some new ground in the gun discussion only to discover that most of the efforts were targeted at legal gun ownership rather than illegal. It is a good read and a good resource for discussion with fence sitters.
 
I find it hard to believe he was truly surprised. I find it more likely he failed to realize how unpopular it would make him.
Click to expand...

Ditto.

Can there really be anybody out there who doesn't understand Bloomberg's position or goals? Those talking about "conversation" seem to me to be the weaker anti-gun crew... they know outright bans or "gun control" language is a loser, so they try to "engage in conversation" hoping the result will be some weaker gun control proposal... never mind those pushing for that talk tend to be the traditional hard core banning crowd (Bloomberg, Feinstein, etc.).

The only people who might not know of Bloomberg's ideals on this one have less awareness of the world than the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand.
 
Well Ridge supports so-called "assault weapon" bans (which even the Democrat controlled Senate voted down 60-40 after Newtown), so I can only imagine what kind of future agenda Bloomberg let him in on that he didn't feel comfortable with staying.

That was the part I found deeply interesting. Ridge is hardly going to get an NRA endorsement anytime soon based on his past statements and even he didn't want to be associated with EGS after seeing their agenda.
 
I wonder if a share of Bloomburg's money is financing some of the editorials I see showing up that have a very thoughtful and much better written message suporting gun control. Making the NRA the villian in a very subtle way. Bloomburg may be a lot of things but stupid is not one of them.

The other talking heads (Feinstein, Schumer, etc ) are not saying much at this time. Maybe they have gotten smarter and realized that if they actually want something done someone else is going to have to carry the ball.

Maybe it is nothing more than trying to get their base out to vote in the Mid-Terms but I wonder if there has been a change in tactics.

Regards,
James
 
All this fighting to maintain the current status quo and repelling attempts at gun control means that the NRA will never have the funds, energy, or motivation to repeal the Hughes amendment.

I would like my MP7 and G36 in this life time, please.
 
I wonder if there has been a change in tactics
Click to expand...

Whether it works or not I think the new strategy is going to be more of a “grassroots” as opposed to a top down legislative push. Over the last few years there have been some high profile events, but still a majority of congressman opposed more legislation. So, now the strategy is to convince voters back home to put pressure on them to support more gun control. This will include a lot of misinformation and half truths, so it is important that we stay engaged.
 
Maybe it is nothing more than trying to get their base out to vote in the Mid-Terms but I wonder if there has been a change in tactics.
Click to expand...

More like worrying about not enough of their base getting out in the mid-terms. Feinstein is probably firmly lodged in her seat. Continued failure however both energizes their opposition, and demoralizes their base. While their party is likely to regain a partisan seat in the next election, it wouldn't be with them.
 
Whether it works or not I think the new strategy is going to be more of a “grassroots” as opposed to a top down legislative push.
Click to expand...
I'd love them to waste their time on that. Gun control is largely a top-down proposition, in which our betters tell us what's in our best interests. That's not my opinion; that's how it's always played out. Such movements don't work at all from the bottom up. They'll attract a few folks who just want to be seen on the evening news, but they don't have the emotional involvement because they don't stand to lose anything.
 
You know what should be done is the NRA starts a splinter group for gun safety under a different name to attract a different side of the political spectrum. Also I believe that the best thing for the Obama administration to do is add an addendum to the new health care law requiring insurance companies to provide mental health care to people.
 
Obviously instability among Bloomberg’s little group of minions is not a bad thing. However, it infuriates me when they frame this as a battle with the NRA and “special interest” instead of what it really is – a battle against American Citizens who choose to own guns.

It’s more important that ever that we all stay united and avoid our own little petty arguments over trivial matters and focus on the bigger picture.

Anyway, to Mr. Glaze: Don’t let the door hit you in the – well you know the rest…
 
NateKirk said:
You know what should be done is the NRA starts a splinter group for gun safety under a different name to attract a different side of the political spectrum.
Click to expand...
Waste of time IMHO. The opposition will immediately uncover this sham and the ad hominem attacks will resume.
 
I've saw those ads on youtube. The first time I watched it I was like "Whoa" then I saw bloom berg at the end and I was like. "Meh". I do agree with gun control however, do whatever you can to shoot accurately, I use both hands, foregrips are nice, too. :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top