Bloomberg and LaPierre on Meet the Press

Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
9,714
Likes
2,699
Feedback: 7 / 0 / 0
Anyone else watching. Where the **** does Bloomberg come up with his flat out lies. 90% of people want to see mandatory background checks??? Really??? who are these 90%
 
Anyone else watching. Where the **** does Bloomberg come up with his flat out lies. 90% of people want to see mandatory background checks??? Really??? who are these 90%

Its not the background checks people are opposed to, its the registry. What he is saying people support is not what is being put through congress. I've seen a lot of anti gun folks use phony stats lately.
 
If I were a betting man I'd bet he gets reelected.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57576006/bloomberg-group-to-spend-$12-million-on-ads-pushing-background-checks/
 
Mr. LaPierre............I have only this to say.......

cm-36243-050bffabb05dbf.gif


****ING BRAVO!
 
his calling out of the press and their failure to report about chicago and its lack of enforcement on punishing the criminals was like an uppercut. Loved it
 
LaPierre did a good job this time I think, a little more tempered. That Bloomberg and leftists are blatantly fabricating numbers is really disturbing, I don't know why they're not getting called out on it more - maybe because the right doesn't want to lose its option to make up similar statistics? Talking heads even claim to know what poll numbers will reflect in 20 years (on another show this morning). Ugh!
 
Last edited:
Its not the background checks people are opposed to, its the registry. What he is saying people support is not what is being put through congress. I've seen a lot of anti gun folks use phony stats lately.

I'm against background checks. It's none of their damned business that I'm buying a gun, or anything else for that matter.

Not to sound like a broken record here, but:
If you're too dangerous to have a gun, you're too dangerous to be amongst the rest of us, and you belong behind bars. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent someone from getting a gun who wants one badly enough, short of incarceration.
 
Not to sound like a broken record here, but:
If you're too dangerous to have a gun, you're too dangerous to be amongst the rest of us, and you belong behind bars. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent someone from getting a gun who wants one badly enough, short of incarceration

The idea if preemptive incarceration because of what you might do is abhorrent
 
Anyone else watching. Where the **** does Bloomberg come up with his flat out lies. 90% of people want to see mandatory background checks??? Really??? who are these 90%

9 antis and 1 pro2A person, then hired someone to do the math for him.

He's a rich d***head and can pay others to "make up things" that make him look swell. Like he actually researched it, or something.

Why speak the truth when you can hire someone to teach you how to lie professionally?
 
I'm against background checks. It's none of their damned business that I'm buying a gun, or anything else for that matter.

Not to sound like a broken record here, but:
If you're too dangerous to have a gun, you're too dangerous to be amongst the rest of us, and you belong behind bars. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent someone from getting a gun who wants one badly enough, short of incarceration.

I agree on all of the above, there probably should be a lot more people in jail to. I'm not for background checks at all, but that would bother me a lot less than the government keeping track of everything we have. Wayne did a great job of articulating that the current system is a nightmare and shouldn't be made any more complicated. I thought Bloomberg helped our case a lot, came across as a nutjob.
 
The idea if preemptive incarceration because of what you might do is abhorrent

Where are you reading preemptive incarceration into it? I'm referring to re-evaluating our entire system of crime and punishment. My stance would be that violent crimes be punished more severely, and repeat violent offenders not be released.
 
I did not see it, but talked on the phone with my mother this morning. She said Lapierre is crazy and should listen to Bloomturd. I told her I didn't see it, but I believe Lapierre before I'd believe Bloomturd. She said "why do you need more than 3 shots", to which I answered "For when there are 30 soldiers or other bad people coming at me". I may be motivated enough today to rejoin the NRA now.

Is the guy doing the interview the one who broke the law, by bringing high capacity magazines onto his show?
 
yeah Dick Gregory, whose kids are said to attend the same school with Obama's and their armed guards (but he doesn't support that for everyone else). Gregory also got the liberal memo and opened the segment by calling it the "gun safety" debate, instead of calling it gun control...

(eta: correction David Gregory)
 
Last edited:
I did not see it, but talked on the phone with my mother this morning. She said Lapierre is crazy and should listen to Bloomturd. I told her I didn't see it, but I believe Lapierre before I'd believe Bloomturd. She said "why do you need more than 3 shots", to which I answered "For when there are 30 soldiers or other bad people coming at me". I may be motivated enough today to rejoin the NRA now.

Is the guy doing the interview the one who broke the law, by bringing high capacity magazines onto his show?

It could take at least as many shots to down one attacker crazed out on meth or whathaveyou.
 
Its not the background checks people are opposed to, its the registry. What he is saying people support is not what is being put through congress. I've seen a lot of anti gun folks use phony stats lately.

Everyone said that for the background check to work properly you need the registry. People believe the registry will lead to confiscation. So they're against the registry. Although people do support the background check, the question they should ask is: do they think they should bother with background checks since they'll be useless without the registry?

Even if there is a 90% who agree, I'm betting you'll hear a massive swing to the second question, which is why bother since they won't have an effect.

So Bloomberg can hype all he wants because he's preaching to the choir. His own guys admit that they know the registry will never happen and that background checks are useless without it and won't risk an election to get something that will have no effect. I have to agree with that thinking. Why risk your career because you're supporting a cosmetic agenda. I don't think anyone would argue with that logic.

The truth is, if you're in Congress and you vote for any anti-gun legislation you're signing off on the end of your career. It's been proven once before and it will happen again. With social media the word will spread like wildfire and if you thought it was bad back then you'll have a tough time getting a job at a fast food restaurant now.
 
Everyone said that for the background check to work properly you need the registry. People believe the registry will lead to confiscation. So they're against the registry. Although people do support the background check, the question they should ask is: do they think they should bother with background checks since they'll be useless without the registry?

Even if there is a 90% who agree, I'm betting you'll hear a massive swing to the second question, which is why bother since they won't have an effect.

So Bloomberg can hype all he wants because he's preaching to the choir. His own guys admit that they know the registry will never happen and that background checks are useless without it and won't risk an election to get something that will have no effect. I have to agree with that thinking. Why risk your career because you're supporting a cosmetic agenda. I don't think anyone would argue with that logic.

The truth is, if you're in Congress and you vote for any anti-gun legislation you're signing off on the end of your career. It's been proven once before and it will happen again. With social media the word will spread like wildfire and if you thought it was bad back then you'll have a tough time getting a job at a fast food restaurant now.

I feel like something will be done so hopefully its as useless/tame as possible. I really don't care if the background checks are ineffective without the registry. I can't see either one making a meaningful difference with respect to crime. To some degree I almost don't want it a lot harder for criminals to get guns because I worry then we'll become targets for them and we'll see a lot more break ins.

Other than the gun safety bit I think Gregory did as good as job as you could reasonably expect. Its not like anyone from a major network is going to care for guns very much and he was relatively fair.
 
Back
Top Bottom