It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bloomberg Plans a $50 Million Challenge to the N.R.A

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   

rustyclutch
reply to post by Spider879
 


Everyone knows they are coming for the guns. Only question is how long and whats the catalyst.


How do you KNOW that?

It sound insane to me frankly.

Paranoid too




posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge
 


I think bloomberg's "heaven" will be having to live in the deepest, darkest part of harlem with no way to defend himself -

I guess he'll be a victim of "gun-control" over and over and over again in his eternity.

He's an idiot.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 


How much you want to bet scumbags like Bloomburgh have their hands in that cookie jar? Silent partner, using their political influence to fan people's fears. Tightening regulations to make the "value" of guns go up so they can make more money. Those people are jokes, yeah antigun my balls. They all have armed security, no problem with those guns though right?



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Happy1
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge
 


I think bloomberg's "heaven" will be having to live in the deepest, darkest part of harlem with no way to defend himself -

I guess he'll be a victim of "gun-control" over and over and over again in his eternity.

He's an idiot.


"Ahem" excuse you!! have been to Harlem lately?? for one it ain't all that dark and your image is some hangover from the 70ts/80ts of a super dangerous drug infested community has long been passe as a matter of fact my city which I am very proud of is the among safest big city in America murder is on 1950ts levels so pretty please go pick on Detroit , Cleveland ,D.C perhaps L.A maybe even some backwoods swamp meth producing community..we good..


That said I do hope his personal hell is to be stuck in a place where folks fire off rounds after rounds while forcing him to drink super-sized Pepsi and eat fatty foods.

edit on 17-4-2014 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   

olaru12

rustyclutch
reply to post by Spider879
 


Everyone knows they are coming for the guns. Only question is how long and whats the catalyst.



Before they come for our guns, wouldn't you think they would stop manufacture and sales first?

Do you really think they are going to shut down a 31.8 Billion dollar a year industry?

www.csmonitor.com...

Too many people, making too much money for them to ban or confiscate guns.

Get real!!


One of the wisest things I have read on ATS lately.
It's all about money, folks.
The NRA tries to scare people into "(fill in the blank for sitting president or opposition congressman, just needs to be a demmycrat) is coming to take your guns!" They won't if YOU GIVE US YOUR MONEY.

The same works with the anti-gun folks...GIVE US YOUR MONEY AND WE WILL TRY TO KEEP ASSAULT WEAPONS OFF THE STREET.

This argument could be applied to both major political parties, abortion and anti-choice, and everything where there exists two differing opinions.

Opinion is a business. Multimillion dollar one, too. The debates will rage incessantly, a little will happen here or there then be repealed and more debate and more shaking the tin cup like a bum in $5000 suit.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by the owlbear
 




Opinion is a business. Multimillion dollar one, too. The debates will rage incessantly, a little will happen here or there then be repealed and more debate and more shaking the tin cup like a bum in $5000 suit.


Applause Applause Applause!!! that's what I have been saying we meaning.. if you are not monied folk will have will have no say in anything as the $$$ will circulate between media folks,of which Bloomberg is apart of,the FOX empire, big business who can turn a profit controlling the debates and the politicians on any issue.
edit on 17-4-2014 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   
I am very pro-rights. I am all for background checks of the individual buying a firearm. I am 100% against a national registry.

Bloomberg wants an enhanced background check. Which would incorporate even more personal information into the current check required to purchase a firearm.

The check includes:
Buyers name
Buyers SSN
Buyers Address
Weapon Model
Weapon Make
Weapon Caliber
Weapon Capacity

That information does not make the public safer. It makes the gun owner more at risk from seizure. It is a national firearms registry. All that should be needed is a buyers name and SSN. A call should be made and the buyer cleared to purchase a firearm. No record should be kept as a "shopping list" on confiscation day.

That is my opinion as a pro-rights person.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 07:16 AM
link   
He can spend $500 million and it won't matter. For all their money, there's one all-important thing that all of these anti-gun politicians and organizations lack. They have no credibility on the issue. They have no idea what they're talking about, what they're trying to ban, or why they're doing it. Nor does it help their cause that they're hypocrites who employ their own armed security services. In their minds, the right to self-defense is only reserved for the privileged.

Let him spend his money. He's going to find out the same thing that Obama, Feinstein and the rest of the Democrat party found out last year: it's likely going to have the opposite effect as the one he wants. If people don't like you, don't trust you, and can't relate to you, they're not going to believe you.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Bloomers moves are not unlike the way the nazis took the jews guns away just before the holocost



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   

liejunkie01
I just read the whole article. The last paragraph really caught my attention. Mainly this.



“I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.”


This to me states exactly where his mindset is.



Maybe he shelled out big bucks for a needle with an eye so big a camel could pass through it.

Mark 10:25



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Blooming bug doesnt want inferior Goyim scum having weapons ,they dont want sheep that that can defend themselves ,just sheep that can be slaughtered when they need to be ,i agree with sensible background checks etc ,but im sick of the ''we are superior to you '' attitude



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   
The NRA could actually counter this pretty easily. Show him as the ultimate nanny state politician, which is exactly what he is. Just create an ad presenting all the things that Bloomberg wants to ban.

Firearms
Cigarettes
Electronic Cigarettes
Sodas
Styrofoam cups
Traffic
Salted food
Trans fats
Probably a number of other things I'm not aware of

Bloomberg has never met a thing that he didn't want to ban.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 


I think it is time to raise taxes. The rich are getting so rich, that they have gone crazy rich and don't know what to do with all their money. This is just a show and a tax write off. All either has to do is call whichever congressman they own, problem fixed.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Underscoring his desire to work with both parties, Mr. Bloomberg is bringing on a new advisory board with prominent Republican and Democratic figures. Tom Ridge, the former Pennsylvania governor and Homeland Security secretary under President George W. Bush; Eli Broad, the philanthropist; Warren Buffett, the investor; and Michael G. Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under both Mr. Bush and President Obama, will all be board members.


Nothing says "grass roots" like billionaires and warmongers.

More and more it looks like Bloomberg is actually very pro-2nd the way he sabotages his own efforts.

It's like a set up for a joke. Three billionaires and two war mongers walk into Colorado.....
edit on 17-4-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
A fool and his money will soon part.....

There is so much more he could be doing with that money.

But, since he has already earned his place in heaven, go for it!



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Mr. zio scumbag,....I MEAN *cough*, Mr. Bloomberg, the 2nd amendment is very clear, and you and your extremist friends will never succeed. NEVER! In fact, I believe you and your ilk will be arrested and tried for treason by Americans.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 


Doctors kill more than guns. Prescription Drugs kill more than guns. Automobiles kill more than guns. You gonna ban hospitals? Certain kinds of medical procedures? Ban prescription drugs? No more cars? The fact of the matter is one lunatic with a gun can only harm so many people if the populace is armed. Name whatever country you want with laws "similar to ours". Their guns are in the process of being taken away as well. To the guy who thinks they wont ban guns cuz "they make too much money" get real pal. This is about POWER. They cant keep doing the things they do for long against an armed populace. They made money off of liquor and they banned that for a decade or two. People who think that if there were no guns people wouldnt still kill each other are delusional. Thats everyones solution for everything.....another law. We got THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of laws. Thats why we got the highest prison population on the PLANET. Theres no law you can pass that will stop murder. Currently you can get the death penalty in half of the states in america I believe and guess what....People still get murdered everyday. I have had at least 5 friends die from gunshots. I know what guns do. Lemme ask you something for the sake of argument though. Lets say I am 35 years old. Lets say I got in a little bit of trouble when I was around 18...maybe got caught with a joint or something of that nature. Should my right to defend myself be forfeited for the REST OF MY LIFE because of one minor incident where i didnt hurt anyone? There are lots of people who cant get a firearm for stupid reasons. Like traffic tickets, child support, 20 year old run ins with the police. Furthermore...95% of the school shootings and such we have had in the past few years would NOT have been stopped by tougher background checks because.....SURPRISE..... the crazies had no criminal history before they went off the deep end. Naming a tiny European country with what you consider to be gun laws "similar to ours" isnt going to work for a comparison. Name a country with over 100 million people with gun laws similar to ours and I will give your argument some credence. Canada is rapidly on the way to losing their weapons. At best you might be able to name Switzerland or something. Nowhere near 100 million people.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Indeed, Mr. Bloomberg has already spent millions of dollars trying to persuade members of Congress to support enhanced background check laws with virtually nothing to show for it - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


I imagine history will repeat itself with this group. Throwing money at a cause is one thing; throwing money at a cause that is nothing more than a feel-good solution (in the United States to be more specific) to a otherwise serious nationwide concern is simply asinine.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   
This is just more proof that the right and left are all on the same team. Yep. Nothing like these political martyrdom suicides right in front of everybody. So give the right a rallying point and pay 50mill in the doing and insure a republican landslide in the next election.


edit on 17-4-2014 by Logarock because: n



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus
I am very pro-rights. I am all for background checks of the individual buying a firearm. I am 100% against a national registry.

Bloomberg wants an enhanced background check. Which would incorporate even more personal information into the current check required to purchase a firearm.

The check includes:
Buyers name
Buyers SSN
Buyers Address
Weapon Model
Weapon Make
Weapon Caliber
Weapon Capacity

That information does not make the public safer. It makes the gun owner more at risk from seizure. It is a national firearms registry. All that should be needed is a buyers name and SSN. A call should be made and the buyer cleared to purchase a firearm. No record should be kept as a "shopping list" on confiscation day.

That is my opinion as a pro-rights person.

See that's a conversation we can have, reasonable suggestions from both sides and split the difference,not pretending we don't have a problem or the solution is to pack Jr's glock along with his lunch box and off he goes to kindergarten,on the flip side having jack booted thugs kicking down your front door demanding to see your gun registration and permit,there have to be solutions out there.




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join