Thread: Bloomberg at it again!

Bloomberg’s new ‘sting’ = same old agenda

Anti-gun New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s latest gun sting is a new approach to pushing the same old agenda, in this case a requirement that background checks be conducted for all gun sales, including private transactions.

Bloomberg

Does it really surprise anyone that this was coming from Bloomberg?

I kinda wonder.

Saying that you are not able to pass a check, and ACTUALLY not being able too are two different things lawfully?

Beyond that, isn't he breaking the law himself by hiring guys to go buy guns out of state?

Originally Posted by VW_Factor

Beyond that, isn't he breaking the law himself by hiring guys to go buy guns out of state?

Breaking the law never stopped him before, why would it now?

Not saying it would stop him. Just pointing it out is all.

Originally Posted by VW_Factor

I kinda wonder.

Saying that you are not able to pass a check, and ACTUALLY not being able too are two different things lawfully?

Beyond that, isn't he breaking the law himself by hiring guys to go buy guns out of state?

Last time he did this he hired residents of the state (AZ) to make the buys. And he got soundly rapped by the AZ AG's office. Didn't AZ eventually pass a new law over it?

Good God!

Why won't these putz' just give it up! His first "sting" in Arizona failed. F & F has been a horrible failure that resulted in the deaths of Americans. Now this crap.

GIVE IT UP! You aren't going to take our guns with legislation. There will be another revolution before that, and I'm betting the side who LIKES guns is going to triumph over the side that HATES them because of some irrational, childish fear. Get a bubbleguming life

Bloomberg et all.... SUCK IT!!

Anyone else a little concerned that 77 of 125 sold the weapon after being informed that the buyer couldn't legally pass a background check? I assumed that there were unscrupulous sellers out there, just didn't figure there were that many. ASSUMING that the report is accurate and not just a PR stunt by the slimebag Bloomberg, a 61.6% success rate on buying illegally is shocking. Are the sellers just out for a quick buck? Are the sellers simply annoyed with the current laws and feel that everyone has the right to bear arms regardless of felony convictions etc..?

F Bloomberg!

... Or are more of the facts and DETAILS surrounding those 77 sales being left out? Perhaps those background checks came back after three days, and the FFL made the transaction... then a day or two after that here comes the "failed" background check. Figures and statistics are manipulated all the time, and if any of you think "favors" aren't done for one government schmuck in one corner of the machine by another government schmuck in another corner of the machine... I'd say you're focusing your concern in the wrong direction.

Bloombum does this to have guns to blame for his own inability to correct the crime problem in his city. And you are right, he cooks the numbers. Look at Illinois, with the strictest gun control laws. How many of their government officials are in prison or under indictment.

Originally Posted by Hawaiian

Bloombum does this to have guns to blame for his own inability to correct the crime problem in his city. And you are right, he cooks the numbers. Look at Illinois, with the strictest gun control laws. How many of their government officials are in prison or under indictment.

But you're comparing apples to bananas!! The gov officials aren't in jail for weapons violations, they're there for taking bribes or selling "favors".

Originally Posted by receo

Anyone else a little concerned that 77 of 125 sold the weapon after being informed that the buyer couldn't legally pass a background check? I assumed that there were unscrupulous sellers out there, just didn't figure there were that many. ASSUMING that the report is accurate and not just a PR stunt by the slimebag Bloomberg, a 61.6% success rate on buying illegally is shocking.

As much as I dislike Bloomberg and his antics, I also think the $#%@$ who sell guns to people who openly admit to being unable to pass a background check or who are under 18 are also screwing the cause of law-abiding gun ownership

There's a summary of the transactions and several undercover videos at the MAIG site - Delete Online Outlaws - that show sellers doing exactly that. If those sellers don't believe in the gun laws, they should work to change them, not just ignore them.

Additionally, they should be brought up on charges and tried in a court of law if they are KNOWINGLY selling to ineligible individuals.


Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Originally Posted by receo

Anyone else a little concerned that 77 of 125 sold the weapon after being informed that the buyer couldn't legally pass a background check? I assumed that there were unscrupulous sellers out there, just didn't figure there were that many. ASSUMING that the report is accurate and not just a PR stunt by the slimebag Bloomberg, a 61.6% success rate on buying illegally is shocking. Are the sellers just out for a quick buck? Are the sellers simply annoyed with the current laws and feel that everyone has the right to bear arms regardless of felony convictions etc..?

F Bloomberg!

i'm willing to bet we're not talking about unscrupulous sellers- we're talking about people put in a jam where they're about to make a simple transaction and the "nice guy" buying the gun lets slip that he wouldn't otherwise pass a background check, putting the seller in an awkward situation his American ultra-polite/non-confrontational schema is incapable of smoothly coping with.

bloomberg's *** *** is taking advantage of personality defects to rack up numbers. these guys aren't crooks, they're just non-assertive.

Here's a theory:

Guy comes in to buy a gun. Lets it slip out that he might not pass a background check.

If I'm the seller, why would I stop the sale? Doesn't the law say that you can't sell if you KNOW that the guy has a SPECIFIC reason to be denied?

Guy says "I might not pass background" -- you don't KNOW any SPECIFIC reason he should be denied. Go ahead and sell.
Guy says "I was convicted of a felony" -- you now KNOW a SPECIFIC reason he should be denied. Don't sell.
Guy says "I use drugs daily" -- -- you now KNOW a SPECIFIC reason he should be denied. Don't sell.

Technically, any one of us "might not pass a background" on any given day. Ever been delayed or even denied for no reason at all? Can and does happen to anybody.

Originally Posted by rufus

Ever been delayed or even denied for no reason at all?

Never for me.

How do we know these recordings are not Bloomberg people on both ends of the conversation?

Originally Posted by Trlsmn

How do we know these recordings are not Bloomberg people on both ends of the conversation?

We don't!!

All we have is Bloomberg's word, and we know how good that is. Maybe as good as Holder's?