Bloomberg to buy big for McAuliffe

Bloomberg to buy big for McAuliffe

There are 102 comments on the Politico story from Oct 22, 2013, titled Bloomberg to buy big for McAuliffe. In it, Politico reports that:

Michael Bloomberg's pro-gun-control super PAC will drop $1.1 million on ads for Democrat Terry McAuliffe in the final two weeks of the Virginia governor's race.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Politico.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#25 Oct 24, 2013
Jorja Fox wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Virginia is one of those states that can accept or reject federal gun laws-so whatever is decided in Washington has no effect on Virginia unless Virginia says so..right?
Not following you here. Federal law trumps state law. Such was the case in Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago.
Jorja Fox

Vesuvius, VA

#27 Oct 24, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Which ones needs to go? How about requiring a license to exercise a constitutional right to bear arms (concealed)? There are four states that do not require a license to do so, and it is referred to as "constitutional carry". Another...get rid of these so-called "gun-free" zones. As anyone can see by the latest number of mass shootings, those are the places that these mass murderers choose to carry out their destruction because they KNOW they will not be met with any kind of like resistance....at least for a little while anyway. Columbine, VT, Sandy Hook, Aurora theater, etc. are all perfect examples of such.
"Not for gun control" means he realizes how asinine assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, etc. are and knows they will not do a damn thing to prevent anything from happening.
Any restrictions or hurdles the law-abiding must jump through in order to exercise a right needs to go. Criminals don't follow them. Laws should only be in place to punish those who infringe on the rights of others. Not to infringe on the constitutional rights of the innocent.
Perhaps not do a damn thing to prevent anything from happening-but I think it's a good idea to limit the number of people you can kill in an instant. Where is the harm in limiting the number of dead bodies. Why do decent law abiding citizens need rapid fire assault weapons? And how do you determine exactly who law abiding citizens are? Get rid of all gun control laws and how do determine if that first time gun buyer is a law abiding citizen or a nut case?
Jorja Fox

Vesuvius, VA

#28 Oct 24, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Not following you here. Federal law trumps state law. Such was the case in Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago.
Good thing you didn't follow me--got some bad info from a group of hunters-they said Virginia is a pre-emptive state-which trumps federal law...only partly true--I apologize. Virginia is a pre-emptive state only of local laws.

The heller/McDonald limits the right of state/local governments to regulate firearms possession with some exceptions like convicted felons etc. Now isn't it a good thing to limit the limits that can be used to regulate firearms?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#30 Oct 25, 2013
Jorja Fox wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps not do a damn thing to prevent anything from happening-but I think it's a good idea to limit the number of people you can kill in an instant. Where is the harm in limiting the number of dead bodies. Why do decent law abiding citizens need rapid fire assault weapons? And how do you determine exactly who law abiding citizens are? Get rid of all gun control laws and how do determine if that first time gun buyer is a law abiding citizen or a nut case?
When a magazine can be changed in less than a second, capacity is irrelevant. And what the hell is a "rapid fire assault weapon"? Do you even know what an "assualt weapon" is? Here is a hint.....and AR-15 is NTO an assault weapon. The MSM uses that term to describe them, but it is only for because of two things. 1. They don't know what they are talking about. And 2. to make them sound more dangerous and menacing. Full-auto weapons are already heavily regulated. And semi-auto means one bullet per trigger squeeze. A LOT of hunting rifles and shotguns are semi-auto. Or are you against hunting, too?
Nope

United States

#33 Oct 25, 2013
MD Conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
nuts with guns enabled by gun nut extremists like you.

No political content at all. This kind of stuff is the dumbest assertion out there.
Jorja Fox

Scottsville, VA

#35 Oct 25, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
When a magazine can be changed in less than a second, capacity is irrelevant. And what the hell is a "rapid fire assault weapon"? Do you even know what an "assualt weapon" is? Here is a hint.....and AR-15 is NTO an assault weapon. The MSM uses that term to describe them, but it is only for because of two things. 1. They don't know what they are talking about. And 2. to make them sound more dangerous and menacing. Full-auto weapons are already heavily regulated. And semi-auto means one bullet per trigger squeeze. A LOT of hunting rifles and shotguns are semi-auto. Or are you against hunting, too?
No I am not against hunting-not at all but I do find it amusing some "hunters" need bait stations and dogs.

I'll ask again how do you keep weapons out of the hands of nut cases without laws either on the weapons or the people or both?
I keep hearing about "law abiding citizens" how the hell are you going to know exactly who is who?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#36 Oct 25, 2013
Jorja Fox wrote:
<quoted text>
No I am not against hunting-not at all but I do find it amusing some "hunters" need bait stations and dogs.
I'll ask again how do you keep weapons out of the hands of nut cases without laws either on the weapons or the people or both?
I keep hearing about "law abiding citizens" how the hell are you going to know exactly who is who?
YOu do not control people by controlling THINGS, because will always find a way to get the THINGS that they want in order to do whatever they want. It is already illegal for felons to be in posession of firearms. Hasn't really stopped them from getting them has it? If you want to cut down on crime.....control the PEOPLE who are committing the crime.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#37 Oct 25, 2013
Jorja Fox wrote:
<quoted text>
No I am not against hunting-not at all but I do find it amusing some "hunters" need bait stations and dogs.
I'll ask again how do you keep weapons out of the hands of nut cases without laws either on the weapons or the people or both?
I keep hearing about "law abiding citizens" how the hell are you going to know exactly who is who?
it is also illegal to bait deer during hunting season. In fact, in VA, it's illegal to bait deer after Sept. 1st. Dogs is a southern tradition in VA. Where I grew up in the midwest, hunting deer with dogs was illegal. Different strokes...

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#38 Oct 25, 2013
Jorja Fox wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll ask again how do you keep weapons out of the hands of nut cases without laws either on the weapons or the people or both?
I keep hearing about "law abiding citizens" how the hell are you going to know exactly who is who?
If that "nut case" is a danger to himself or others, you lock his ass up where he can't hurt himself or others. Same thing with violent criminals. You put their asses in jail and you leave them their until they are no longer a threat to inocent people.

Plain and simple.
Jorja Fox

Scottsville, VA

#40 Oct 25, 2013
MD Conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
Then your blind, stupid, or just plain ignorant.
Did you even read the article? Sh1t even the fcuking title is a goddamm clue. Bloomberg has a PAC which is anti-gun. Bloomberg has stated many times he wants to repeal or re-write the Second Amendment.
Jesus H Fcuking Christ you are dumber than a houseplant. Come back and post when you wake up from your Liberal kool-aid induced coma. And I strongly suggest you read/listen to something other than Liberal propaganda, which is 100% inaccurate, full of lies and bullshit.
Pro gun control NOT anti-gun. Please don't tell me they are the same--they are not!

I would like to read the article where he says he wants to repeal/rewrite the second amendment-do you have a link? I am not aware of those statements.
Jorja Fox

Scottsville, VA

#41 Oct 25, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
If that "nut case" is a danger to himself or others, you lock his ass up where he can't hurt himself or others. Same thing with violent criminals. You put their asses in jail and you leave them their until they are no longer a threat to inocent people.
Plain and simple.
To find the nut cases requires extensive background checks and waiting periods..people won't put up with that. And if they do put up with that-you need to build more prisons, hire more guards-appoint more judges..won't happen.

I agree with "put their asses in jail" but you have to be ready with a place to put them..seems to me there would be a big backlog in the courts.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#43 Oct 25, 2013
Jorja Fox wrote:
<quoted text>
To find the nut cases requires extensive background checks and waiting periods..people won't put up with that. And if they do put up with that-you need to build more prisons, hire more guards-appoint more judges..won't happen.
I agree with "put their asses in jail" but you have to be ready with a place to put them..seems to me there would be a big backlog in the courts.
Waiting periods don't work. In fact, they put those in danger who need a gun for their own protection from those who would do them harm, such as a recent seperated/divorced woman who has a restraining order against a violent ex. And background checks are already in place. don't be fooled by the term "universal background check". It is no more extensive than what we have now, it just requires EVERY gun sale transaction to go through a license dealer, even if you were to sell a gun to a neighbor you have know for 30 years. It is nothing more than defacto full gun registration, which has never been shown to stop any crime.

If the new jails aren't ready....pile them into the jails we have. Stack them in there like cord wood. I don't care. If they don't like it, they shouldn't be doing things that will land them in jail. We coddle our jailees too much now anyway.
Only

Huntsville, AL

#44 Oct 25, 2013
MD Conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
"..who can think for themselves", while falling in goosestep with the anti-gun nutters..
in bizarro world.
Jorja Fox

Scottsville, VA

#45 Oct 25, 2013
PrinceofDarkness wrote:
<quoted text>
you have realize when these hillbillys run out of facts to support their case, they start fabricating nonsense and repeating it over and over hoping the other guntards follow along... techinical name for it is "circle jerk"...they invented it
I get the same double talk because I'm pro choice. People should have personal rights and I don't care what it is-personal choice period and I do not mean do what you want-when you want to whom ever you want-there must be checks and balances. The reason laws must be written and forced upon people is because some have no clue what is right or wrong-if we all behaved responsibly with common sense we wouldn't need laws. But laws should be fair and not made because of a personal preference by the law maker. Which is why I can not and will not vote for the cucu guy-he is so obsessed with his own personal beliefs he can't see beyond his nose. His job is to enforce the laws but he won't if he doesn't agree with it and that scares me.
Jorja Fox

Scottsville, VA

#46 Oct 25, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Waiting periods don't work. In fact, they put those in danger who need a gun for their own protection from those who would do them harm, such as a recent seperated/divorced woman who has a restraining order against a violent ex. And background checks are already in place. don't be fooled by the term "universal background check". It is no more extensive than what we have now, it just requires EVERY gun sale transaction to go through a license dealer, even if you were to sell a gun to a neighbor you have know for 30 years. It is nothing more than defacto full gun registration, which has never been shown to stop any crime.
If the new jails aren't ready....pile them into the jails we have. Stack them in there like cord wood. I don't care. If they don't like it, they shouldn't be doing things that will land them in jail. We coddle our jailees too much now anyway.
I believe any woman needs to know how to use and should own a gun period probably the same for men too but I personally don't want just "anybody" having a gun-there has to be checks and balances. I really don't have a problem with the universal background check cause my neighbor of 30 years might have gotten a screw loose. Agreed laws do not stop or prevent crime but there has to be a way to make sure only the law abiding citizens have access to them.

"Stack them like cord wood" I think there's laws against even that. Agreed they get far to much considering they are criminals BUT they do have rights (the law says so).

Things aren't as black & white and you would like and not as easy as you make it sound either. Taxpayers want it all but aren't willing to pay for it.
Jorja Fox

Scottsville, VA

#47 Oct 25, 2013
MD Conservative wrote:
<quoted text>
Then your blind, stupid, or just plain ignorant.
Did you even read the article? Sh1t even the fcuking title is a goddamm clue. Bloomberg has a PAC which is anti-gun. Bloomberg has stated many times he wants to repeal or re-write the Second Amendment.
Jesus H Fcuking Christ you are dumber than a houseplant. Come back and post when you wake up from your Liberal kool-aid induced coma. And I strongly suggest you read/listen to something other than Liberal propaganda, which is 100% inaccurate, full of lies and bullshit.
"Jesus H Fcuking Christ you are dumber than a houseplant"

And you are just a ray of sunshine. If I had any doubts(which I didn't) about my vote-you have reinforced my choice.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#48 Oct 26, 2013
Jorja Fox wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe any woman needs to know how to use and should own a gun period probably the same for men too but I personally don't want just "anybody" having a gun-there has to be checks and balances. I really don't have a problem with the universal background check cause my neighbor of 30 years might have gotten a screw loose. Agreed laws do not stop or prevent crime but there has to be a way to make sure only the law abiding citizens have access to them.
"Stack them like cord wood" I think there's laws against even that. Agreed they get far to much considering they are criminals BUT they do have rights (the law says so).
Things aren't as black & white and you would like and not as easy as you make it sound either. Taxpayers want it all but aren't willing to pay for it.
Do a little research on the last 100 years or so of what full firearm registration has led to. Let me give you a hint.....it IS NOT a safer society. In fact, it is the creed of just about every dispotic dictator in the last century, and was all done in the name of "public safety". There have been approx. 100 MILLION people who have died at the hands of their own government AFTER the guns were first registered, and then confiscated. Don't be so gullible as to think that the govt has your best interest in mind. What govts want and what they fight to keep is POWER. And what better way to ensure their survival than to make sure that their populace CAN'T give them any kind of armed resistance.

'To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to
enslave them'- George Mason

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#49 Oct 26, 2013
Jorja Fox wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe any woman needs to know how to use and should own a gun period probably the same for men too but I personally don't want just "anybody" having a gun-there has to be checks and balances. I really don't have a problem with the universal background check cause my neighbor of 30 years might have gotten a screw loose. Agreed laws do not stop or prevent crime but there has to be a way to make sure only the law abiding citizens have access to them.
"Stack them like cord wood" I think there's laws against even that. Agreed they get far to much considering they are criminals BUT they do have rights (the law says so).
Things aren't as black & white and you would like and not as easy as you make it sound either. Taxpayers want it all but aren't willing to pay for it.
As far as the rights of prisoners go (and I am talking about violent criminals who harm others), once they have violated the rights of others and have either heinously wounded or killed their victims, the ONLY thing they should be entitled to after a speedy trial is a quick death if found guilty.(personal opinion....your mileage may vary)
Jorja Fox

Vesuvius, VA

#50 Oct 28, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as the rights of prisoners go (and I am talking about violent criminals who harm others), once they have violated the rights of others and have either heinously wounded or killed their victims, the ONLY thing they should be entitled to after a speedy trial is a quick death if found guilty.(personal opinion....your mileage may vary)
I'm not willing to put the life of anyone in the hands of a system that is broken/corrupt.

So cucu may be just your man-he doesn't care about fairness/rights or equality.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#51 Oct 28, 2013
Jorja Fox wrote:
<quoted text>
So cucu may be just your man-he doesn't care about fairness/rights or equality.
How so?(and give specific examples......not liberal rhetoric)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Cory Booker Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Democrats see opening in Trump's stumble on tra... Feb '17 Newt G s Next Wife 33
News a Reality TVa campaigning is part of new politi... Jan '17 spocko 6
News Cory Booker: Jeff Sessions Won't Protect LGBT P... Jan '17 nopervs allowed 1
News Booker, Menendez endorse Murphy for governor Jan '17 Nono 2
News Shutting down 'shark finning': US fishermen pro... (Jul '16) Jul '16 Captain Yesterday 6
News Cory Booker cagey about vice presidential vetti... (Jul '16) Jul '16 Baptistism by Proxy 3
News Poll: Should Hillary Clinton choose Cory Booker... (Jun '16) Jun '16 Go Blue Forever 4
More from around the web