Needs to be pointed out... Mayor Bloomberg, recent darling, and great NRA "equalizer"...

[virginia mountainman]

Seems to only be spending money, to hurt DEMOCRATS in tough races...

To many in here (including me) this is absolutely not a surprise, people in their blind marches for gun control, do not care whom their allies are, and Bloomberg spent most of his political career with a big ol "R" next to his name.. LOL, do you think the voters in ARKANSAS, give too squats about what HE thinks?

No surprise that he is concentrating his fire on Democrats, unfortunately, to many in here that is not a problem. They are willing to sell out their mother, and their very souls to destroy constitutional protections, (but scream bloody murder when they learn the government has their internet and cell phone records, come on now, at least be consistent in your selling out the Bill of Rights)

The problem most of the gun control supports don't even realize is that most of the movers and shakers in the gun control movement, are REPUBLICANS...So it is no surprise that they are working hard to unseat Democrats.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/06/13/schumer-bloomberg-guns-democrats/2419539/

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. I would actually vote for Bloomberg...

...but only to throw him off the island, any island.

[ileus]

2. Now isn't the time to run Regressive 2Aer's

We need to confirm that we're not the enemy of the 2A they try and make us out to be.

[rrneck]

3. Bloomberg would probably get banned from DU

for working to defeat Dems. He would certainly have had some interesting Meta threads.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. Bloomberg is a 1%er. The End.

[jimmy the one]

5. Bloomberg a 'R' about 6 yrs, is 70

I'm utterly aghast at the lethargic replies prior to mine, by 3 alleged democrats no less. Nobody challenged this rot from va mtn man? You all just rolled over & said yes yes & tickle my tummy some more?

vamtnman: {bloomberg} Seems to only be spending money, to hurt DEMOCRATS in tough races..

Faulty reasoning; Bloomberg spent money on democrat primaries to help dems more supportive of guncontrol policies which democrats tend to support over 4 to 1. Bloomberg, by calling on new york donors not to spend money in those 4 red states, is not spending money to hurt dems. NRA does similar to less than ideal progun candidates.

mtnman: ..Bloomberg spent most of his political career with a big ol "R" next to his name..

Misleading & perhaps wrong, a dem for ~30 yrs prior politics, wiki: Bloomberg (born 1942), a lifelong member of the Democratic Party, decided to run for mayor as a member of the Republican Party.. Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 to run for mayor as a Republican {& won}.. won a second term in 2005 and left the Republican Party two years later {June 19, 2007}.. spent approx 6 years as 'R', the same time he's spent as an independent as of this month june 2013, less 3 days.
--RINO: He is socially liberal or progressive, supporting abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control, and amnesty for illegal immigrants, for example. On economics, foreign, and domestic issues, Bloomberg tends to be conservative.

mtnman: ..he is concentrating his fire on Democrats, unfortunately, to many in here that is not a problem. They are willing to sell out their mother, and their very souls to destroy constitutional protections,..

baloney drama queen; mtn man who represents the small 20% minority of democrats on guncontrol issues, is not the one to be speaking for democrats against bloomberg, who is socially liberal or progressive, supporting abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control, and amnesty for illegal immigrants..

mtnman: The problem most of the gun control supports don't even realize is that most of the movers and shakers in the gun control movement, are REPUBLICANS...So it is no surprise that they are working hard to unseat Democrats.

And you all just rolled over & let this pass, this blatant LIE, pin the tail on the donkey? did mtn man miss the april senate vote on simple background checks? bloomberg is a dem leaning independent & was a RINO; and you call yourselves democrats?
(sarah brady of brady campaign is repub, but dems more supportive).

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Thanks JTO

While we differ in some ideologies, I appreciate the thought and investigation you put into many of your replies. In this case you've illustrated that candidates will campaign so as to win the election. At least they will, if they are worth electing. Often a candidate will be neither an ideal Democratic nor an ideal Republican candidate.

While in office, elected officials operate in a continual state of compromise between their fundamental convictions, the desires of their constituents and whatever they think will get them re-elected.

I remember these quotes on candidates:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open.

The first is from Patrick Henry. The second is a bit of hyperbole from Tom Clancy.

I don't see much value in cases where 1%er politicians who've demonstrated by their public record their opposition to some basic parts of the Bill of Rights. I'm not upset that politicians are making those compromises. I get rather worried about voters that dismiss that kind of record when the figure in question satisfies a single issue of theirs.

[jimmy the one]

8. pat henry out of context

discntnt: While we differ in some ideologies, I appreciate the thought and investigation you put into many of your replies. In this case you've illustrated that candidates will campaign so as to win the election.

Thank you, you've bumped up to 'uncertain adversarial'; I can't disagree with your tailing above, & I think someone who switches parties is either young & inexperienced, or of little convictions, or does so as an expedient, this latter which bloomberg falls into. BUT, bloomberg has extenuating circumstances as I will elaborate.
.. He could'nt win the dem primary but wanted to run since he didn't agree with the dem candidate, so he switched parties -- expediently. BUT, he was recognized in democratic NYC as a liberal progressive not really a republican just a RINO. So his tactic was recognized as a ploy to run for 'dem' mayor in repub clothing. Hard to compliment tactic, but he's a welcome ally now.

discnt citing 2ndA Mythology, combining 2 quotes from patrick henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined..The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

Patrick Henry in full context was talking about funding the federal militia (I think I corrected hansberry on this a month or so back). As well, your 'quote' comes from taking excerpts from two separate pat henry speeches & combining them (tho in the militia sense he might have agreed to the combine):..approaches that jewel: {Patrick Henry} Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (5 June 1788)
.. The tailing 'every man be armed' was not in Henry's speech at the ratifying convention, but elsewhere, therefore invalid to combine the two concepts out of context.

henry in context, 1788 ratifying convention: “Our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall he doubly armed. The great object is that every man [of the militia] be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case.” http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/11/evolution-of-an-argument-with-a-gunloon/

Thanks again for saying I appreciate the thought and investigation you put into many of your replies.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. seeking enlightenment...

...I ask could you please explain whether "...you've bumped up to 'uncertain adversarial'" is something I've done (in your opinion) or does this statement reflect your opinion of my position?

You're welcome. Whatever we disagree on, I see most of your replies evidencing time spent in thought about the topic and the ideas under discussion. Some of the pro-control posters seem more interested in writing emotional/emotion based attacks or just clicking the alert button and hoping for the right mix of jurors. I sincerely hope that most folks would recognize that ideological opposition is the essence of freedom and democracy. I also hope that anyone who might be offended (by anything I say) would have patience.

The concatenation of these two quotes is apparent to any reader with an understanding of the function of an ellipsis. The two quotes from Henry were separated in time by 9 days. The event at which these speeches were given was the convention to ratify the US Constitution by the State of Virginia. The convention lasted from the 2nd to the 27 of June 1788 Patrick Henry was the leader of the group opposing the ratification substantially because of its lacking the a Bill of Rights and due to doubts about the degree of power that would be held by the Federal Government and the President.

The opinions expressed in the blog you link are tainted by the language used that few possessed of adequate logic and vocabulary would choose. Is Henry talking about militia funding? Yes, but not only militia funding.

Allow me a few quotes as a further illustration of the general need for arms:

"Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave." - Andrew Fletcher

"Self-defense is Nature's eldest law." - John Dryden

"... in all countries where personal freedom is valued, however much each individual may rely on legal redress, the right of each to carry arms - and these the best and the sharpest - for his own protection in case of extremity, is a right of nature indelible and irrepressible, and the more it is sought to be repressed the more it will recur." - James Paterson (quoted in Joyce Malcolm's "To Keep and Bear Arms... &quot

[jimmy the one]

10. fletcher

'uncertain adversarial'" is a bump up from 'unfriendly adversarial', meaning you could be friendly or unfriendly.

discntnt: The opinions expressed in the blog you link are tainted by the language used that few possessed of adequate logic and vocabulary would choose. Is Henry talking about militia funding? Yes, but not only militia funding.

The blog was used only for the pat henry quote, the first I came across, & in context 'every man should have a gun' etc obviously pertained to the militia.
.. I'm unfamiliar with the other people & quotes, but found these (Dryden's quote on self defense is moot to bearing arms discussion):

"Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave." - Andrew Fletcher (1655-1716);
wiki: .. {Fletcher's} "12 limitations," intended to limit the power of the crown and English ministers in Scottish politics. His {relevant} limitations were: 8.THAT no regiment or company of horse, foot or dragoons, be kept on foot in peace or war, but by consent of Parliament.
9.THAT all fencible men of the nation, between sixty and sixteen, be with all diligence possible armed with bayonets, and firelocks all of a calibre, and continue always provided in such arms with ammunition suitable.
.. he was also seen as impetuous, some Englishmen regarded him as a violent, ingenious fanatic.. a most violent republican and extremely passionate.
.. his suggestion military training should be conducted in camps where - No woman should be suffered to come within the camp, and the crimes of abusing their own bodies any manner of way, punished with death.

Obviously fletcher was a militia man, & british soldiers & militia were free men. His quote is not evidence of an individual rights view - he wrote it in the militia aspect; (cont'd)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. arms and defense

Thanks for the bump up.

&quot Dryden's quote on self defense is moot to bearing arms discussion)"

The concept of self-defense is, IMHO, an extension of the most basic instinct for and right of survival. A distinction needs to made between those who arm themselves having planned criminal activity with malice and aggression and those who arm themselves as a precaution against those others.

Rights, duties and associated functions relating to a militia pertain to common defense. I'm addressing self-defense at the moment.

[jimmy the one]

11. paterson

James Paterson 1823-1894 (quoted in Joyce Malcolm's "To Keep and Bear Arms..) ..the right of each to carry arms - and these the best and the sharpest - for his own protection in case of extremity, is a right of nature indelible and irrepressible,..

Evidently the (english) james paterson quote was circa 1877, & the further you get from 1791 bill of rights date, the more the individual right aspect gets mingled with original intent. In america by 1877 the individual rkba faction was well established but still a minority view.

Recently ~2009, a consortium of 8 british scholars on english history became quite perturbed that scalia (in heller 2008) misinterpreted the english 'have arms' decree from their english bill of rights (1689), correcting the oaf with copious papers:
.. contrary to discredited scholarship {including Joyce Malcolm} upon which Heller {decision} relied, the right to “have arms” embodied in the English Declaration of Rights did not intend to protect an individual’s right to possess, own, or use arms for private purposes such as to defend a home against burglars (what, in modern times, we mean when we use the term “self-defense”). Rather, it referred to a right to possess arms in defense of the realm.
The Supreme Court correctly found that the English right to “have arms” was an expression of the same right that has “long been understood to be the predecessor to our 2nd Amendment.” Where the Court erred was by interpreting the quoted terms in a manner divorced from their historical context, reading “individual” to mean “private,” “defence” to mean “defense against harm by private individuals acting for private purposes” and equating “self-preservation” with the modern usage of the term “self-defense.” In doing so, the Court relied heavily on the scholarship of Joyce Lee Malcolm. The overwhelming consensus among leading English historians, however, is that Malcolm’s work is flawed on this point.
Moreover, the right of “self-preservation” was to be exercised not by individuals acting privately or independently, but as a militia organized by their elected representatives, whether Parliament, the Boston Town Council, or otherwise.
http://www.oyez.org/sites/default/files/cases/briefs/pdf/brief__08-1521__22.pdf
Amici Curiae have an interest in the Court having a well-informed and accurate understanding of the Anglo-American tradition to “have arms” from which {2ndA} originate..
.. Amici Curiae are scholars and professional historians whose collective expertise covers the following areas: the history of Stuart England, the Restoration, the 1689 Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, the Early Republic, American legal history, American Constitutional history, and Anglo-American history. Each has earned one or more advanced degrees in history, political science and/or law. The depth of knowledge they bring to the Court’s inquiry in this case is reflected in the biographical information provided in the accompanying Appendix

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. original intent

In my writing within this thread I've expressed thoughts on personal arms for self-defense in general and, to some degree, the disconnect between those principles I hold as fundamental and the overt actions and statements of Mayor Bloomberg. Mostly I've written from the perspective of self-defense.

I see discussions of the militia and 2A as issues encompassed by the RKBA but the self-defense aspect to be at least if not more important. I did not bring up the 2A or the militia in anything I wrote.

[DonP]

7. Let's be brutally frank about this, gun control can't afford to lose Bloomie - literally "afford"

They're just too damn tight with a buck to actually put their own money into gun control. They desperately need Bloomie and his 1%er ilk. And they are willing to hold their noses and look the other way on his authoritarian stands on other rights and all the money he spends against Dems in red states as well, to get at his money.

For decades we saw that the gun control side never actually put any of their own financial backing behind what they claim is their deepest held beliefs. That's why the membership in the Brady Group was and is a joke. Ask any of the gun control supporters that show up down here if they actually belong to any of the groups? None of them did. Well, we did have one long gone poster claim he gave Brady $2,500 in one year. Only problem was Brady's records, for an entire year, showed less than $1,000 in total member donations.

It's easier to be an online commando than actually join a group that will ask for donations. Now they have a guy that will pick up the tab for them so they can rant about how "gun control is sweeping the nation", "the NRA is dead" etc. and somebody else picks up the tab.