Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Group Targets Tighter Laws in 12 States

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: neo96

Because they weren't considered people.

What a coincidence ?

Gun owners aren't considered people either.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
And the 13th amendment of the 1930's was sooooooooooooo successful it helped create and foster Organized Crime by creating an enormous black-market (and associated political corruption) in illegal alcohol. You may ask yourself, "why is he bringing prohibition into this discussion? It's irrelevant!".

And yet, even today, we have laws in place for the manufacture, sale, distribution, and public consumption of alcohol. It is more regulated than guns are, even allowing localities to ban it completely.

a reply to: Krakatoa

And the 13th amendment of the 1930's was sooooooooooooo successful it helped create and foster Organized Crime by creating an enormous black-market (and associated political corruption) in illegal alcohol. You may ask yourself, "why is he bringing prohibition into this discussion? It's irrelevant!".

Yep.

They banned alcohol, and drugs, and they are a multi billion dollar business.

And somehow they think it will be different with guns.

And one of the largest drug, and gun dealers in the word is our own government.

a reply to: AgentShillington

But what does that have to do with prohibition let alone firearms?

That makes no sense in the context of this discussion.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: neo96

Because they weren't considered people.

What a coincidence ?

Gun owners aren't considered people either.

Nice rhetoric, but I am speaking about an issue of legality.

I'm done with the thread. I've said my piece about guns.

a reply to: AgentShillington

Legality eh.

I distinctly remember someone ignoring the LAW.

Back here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: Krakatoa
And the 13th amendment of the 1930's was sooooooooooooo successful it helped create and foster Organized Crime by creating an enormous black-market (and associated political corruption) in illegal alcohol. You may ask yourself, "why is he bringing prohibition into this discussion? It's irrelevant!".

And yet, even today, we have laws in place for the manufacture, sale, distribution, and public consumption of alcohol. It is more regulated than guns are, even allowing localities to ban it completely.

And even now we have many more deaths associated with it than firearms? Odd, isn't it. We tried as a nation to ban it, failed miserably, and now that it is legal, regulated, taxed, etc... we still have deaths from it, and they are "accepted" by not making the MSM news (like firearm deaths seem to be blasted in your face in the MSM). The real reason you see firearm deaths as the front-story of the MSM is it SELLS. It raises the number of eyeballs on the story so they can charge more for advertisements they slap in-between. THAT is the the reality.

I wonder if Michael Bloomberg has ever walked on a dirt road?

Or seen an animal that can kill him, without a fence protecting him?

I think MIchael Bloomberg needs to keep his ass in New York and leave the country to the country folk.

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: AgentShillington

LOL. Hope to god a cop's never late to your dwelling if you have a violent break in.

2nd line is stupid but I fill it in anyway.

Really who wants to live in a country where only the government, and the leo's are allowed to have guns ?

Places like that exist, and they aren't all rainbows, and unicorns.

You're the one spouting off about banning guns. I'm talking about some common sense laws.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing like so many Gun Enthusiasts fear. Heck, it's not even all or nothing now, since many forms of firearms are already being restricted.

My thoughts on "common sense laws" is best summed up thusly:



"Common sense gun laws" is code speak for "chipping away at freedom". No thank you.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I don't think he has the intestinal fortitude to walk that road without his armed bodyguards. Perhaps his hypocritical lifestyle should be the topic of discussion by the MSM regarding this latest move? I truly believe the MSM is really missing out on an opportunity here to capture a very large and loyal audience of "eyeballs" here. The number of anti-gun advocates has GOT to be smaller by far than the pro-2nd advocates. Talk about a pool of $$ for advertisers!

A true lost business opportunity IMO.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

I wonder if Michael Bloomberg has ever walked on a dirt road?

Or seen an animal that can kill him, without a fence protecting him?

Aaaaactually, I would prefer he took that final walk along the fence-less, dirt road you described.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Phrasing it as 'common sense' gun laws implies that if you disagree, you lack common sense. Its actually quite arrogant and insulting. And they wonder why gun owners just won't listen to them. Its a great mystery, it seems.

Granted, at this point, I don't think there's a gun owner in the country who is being fooled by any of it anymore. Just about everyone knows what the end game is, and these laws, are, as you say, a chipping away at freedom, and the 'common sense' crowd will never, ever be satisfied.

a reply to: vor78

Yeah it is arrogant, and insulting.

After the events, in Ferguson, and NYC have proven the explicit need for the right to keep, and bear arms.

As a protection from the mob.

As a protection from the Police.

The US government wasn't there to save anyone.

The police wasn't there to save anyone.

They were there stoking the fires.

Gun ownership can't be any more important for us.

originally posted by: neo96

Really who wants to live in a country where only the government, and the leo's are allowed to have guns ?

Places like that exist, and they aren't all rainbows, and unicorns.

There are also many countries where people are allowed to have guns, with stricter controls, that seem to be a lot better off in regard to gun violence than the US.

UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand all spring to mind as places where you can fairly easily own a range of firearms, many firearms are restricted (particularly pistols and "MSSA's"), and they seem the manage to not shoot each other quite so much.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: AgentShillington

No it doesn't. And I won't sit here and listen to political rhetoric with absolutely no basis in law or reality. Either you truly are ignorant of American laws and common sense or you're just a shill (and a really poor one at that).

Of course he/she is a shill, read the name.
There is no point to arguing with the willfully ignorant, ignore him/her.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Oz is not a gun-free society, we're just limited now in which types can be legally owned with special conditions on how they're stored. You need an acceptable reason for purchasing a firearm here and 'home defense' or any sort of defence is not an acceptable reason.

Crimes involving firearms still take place in Oz but nothing like the US. The weapons used in those crimes here are pretty much all stolen weapons (burgled from legal owners) so there are now calls for even tighter regulations on ownership/storage.

Appears to shed some light on states where they have established footholds.

It is spreading like cancer.

What can we do?
What must we do?

# 336

originally posted by: Pilgrum

The weapons used in those crimes here are pretty much all stolen weapons (burgled from legal owners) so there are now calls for even tighter regulations on ownership/storage.

As are the weapons used here to commit crimes. Penalizing the law-abiding citizen does not prevent criminals from breaking the law and it never will. You have, sadly, ceded a large portion of your rights and now they want what is left.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

DIvorce the word 'gun" from "violence". Because, honestly, violence is violence. THe methodology is purely academic.

Is the US more violent than the rest of the world?

I know the answer: the further you get from our southern border...yes. But in the south it is more violent. I think the reasons are obvious.

But violence is violence. Stabbed, shot, or beaten...its still violence.